In particular, I found @Holly Elmore â¸ď¸ đ¸âs PauseAI post surprisingly convincing, given that I am generally a bit skeptical of pausing AI as a strategy for reducing risk. Iâm also sympathetic to the argument that the EA Forum should allocate our money to charities that are harder to fundraise for elsewhere, and PauseAI scores well there. So Iâve made PauseAI my top choice, which I didnât spend too much time debating since my one vote isnât currently the winning one. I may revisit my vote if that changes.
In general I recommend listening to the Spotify playlist (or even reading through all the Marginal Funding Week posts/âcomments if youâre extra virtuous!) â I found the experience both inspiring (hearing about all the work people are doing to improve the world) and sad (realizing how much more money we need to do all these things).
As noted in this comment, my willingness to update on the results themselves is limited by concerns that the results could be significantly influenced by different levels of get-out-the-vote-efforts (which I would consider noise). Unless I can find a way to minimize that potential noise source, I expect to change my mind insofar as promoting a few organizations that ranked higher than expected to my consider/âresearch list for early 2025 donationsâbut I wonât assign significant weight per se to the vote totals in my final decisions.
I think the main reason to update oneâs vote based on the results is if you voted number 1 for a charity that is first or second, but a charity you also quite like is e.g. fourth or fifth, then strategically switching to rank the latter first would make sense. But this was not the case for me.
Overall my guess is the live vote tallies adds to the excitement but doesnât actually contribute much epistemically?
Has anyone changed their minds because of the results/â for any other reason during this election so far?
PS- Iâm open to replies along the lines of âno I havenât changed my mind, and this sort of thing wouldnât because...â
Personally I found it really helpful to listen through the Spotify playlist of Marginal Funding Week posts during a recent flight. (Note that unfortunately many of the candidates arenât in that playlist, apologies!)
In particular, I found @Holly Elmore â¸ď¸ đ¸âs PauseAI post surprisingly convincing, given that I am generally a bit skeptical of pausing AI as a strategy for reducing risk. Iâm also sympathetic to the argument that the EA Forum should allocate our money to charities that are harder to fundraise for elsewhere, and PauseAI scores well there. So Iâve made PauseAI my top choice, which I didnât spend too much time debating since my one vote isnât currently the winning one. I may revisit my vote if that changes.
In general I recommend listening to the Spotify playlist (or even reading through all the Marginal Funding Week posts/âcomments if youâre extra virtuous!) â I found the experience both inspiring (hearing about all the work people are doing to improve the world) and sad (realizing how much more money we need to do all these things).
As noted in this comment, my willingness to update on the results themselves is limited by concerns that the results could be significantly influenced by different levels of get-out-the-vote-efforts (which I would consider noise). Unless I can find a way to minimize that potential noise source, I expect to change my mind insofar as promoting a few organizations that ranked higher than expected to my consider/âresearch list for early 2025 donationsâbut I wonât assign significant weight per se to the vote totals in my final decisions.
I think the main reason to update oneâs vote based on the results is if you voted number 1 for a charity that is first or second, but a charity you also quite like is e.g. fourth or fifth, then strategically switching to rank the latter first would make sense. But this was not the case for me.
Overall my guess is the live vote tallies adds to the excitement but doesnât actually contribute much epistemically?