I see that your post has received a mixed reception so far, with some people downvoting your post. I don’t know why they did this, but I’d guess it’s because they perceived your post as motivated by money.
I suspect that integrating into the EA community will happen effectively if you engage with EA thinking at an intellectual level. EAs notoriously love having their cherished beliefs challenged, and if you wrote some content which educated the community in the right ways, it would probably be very much appreciated. When I say “the right ways”, I’m thinking of content which (a) rests on enough EA common knowledge to be meaningful to people in EA (b) leverages things you know which the community might not know.
Examples which I suspect would go down well:
Such-and-such claims about peace and security made by Will MacAskill or his team are misguided
Peace engineering outperforms AI safety/pandemic response/some other cherished EA cause area (from a longtermist perspective)
Peace engineering is high impact from a neartermist (not just longtermist) perspective
If you could make claims like these, and back them with careful argument, in a way which demonstrates understanding of EA thinking on cause prioritisation, then I would certainly consider you very much integrated into the EA movement, and I suspect others would too.
Yeah, I strong downvoted because the post doesn’t explain what the institute actually does but instead tries to pull public quotes of EAs and try to shoe horn said quotes into PAC Institute. The website is also very opaque. I feel like I got further away from understanding what peace engineering was while reading this post. The money thing I presumed more was an inelegant turn of phrase on the part of the author but did play a part in downvoting.
I think some clear descriptions of what the poster’s organization has accomplished, or at least of who it is affiliated with and some concrete near-term plans, would significantly help this post.
Hi, welcome to the EA Forum.
I see that your post has received a mixed reception so far, with some people downvoting your post. I don’t know why they did this, but I’d guess it’s because they perceived your post as motivated by money.
I suspect that integrating into the EA community will happen effectively if you engage with EA thinking at an intellectual level. EAs notoriously love having their cherished beliefs challenged, and if you wrote some content which educated the community in the right ways, it would probably be very much appreciated. When I say “the right ways”, I’m thinking of content which (a) rests on enough EA common knowledge to be meaningful to people in EA (b) leverages things you know which the community might not know.
Examples which I suspect would go down well:
Such-and-such claims about peace and security made by Will MacAskill or his team are misguided
Peace engineering outperforms AI safety/pandemic response/some other cherished EA cause area (from a longtermist perspective)
Peace engineering is high impact from a neartermist (not just longtermist) perspective
If you could make claims like these, and back them with careful argument, in a way which demonstrates understanding of EA thinking on cause prioritisation, then I would certainly consider you very much integrated into the EA movement, and I suspect others would too.
Yeah, I strong downvoted because the post doesn’t explain what the institute actually does but instead tries to pull public quotes of EAs and try to shoe horn said quotes into PAC Institute. The website is also very opaque. I feel like I got further away from understanding what peace engineering was while reading this post. The money thing I presumed more was an inelegant turn of phrase on the part of the author but did play a part in downvoting.
I think some clear descriptions of what the poster’s organization has accomplished, or at least of who it is affiliated with and some concrete near-term plans, would significantly help this post.