Friendly suggestions: expand CHAI in the first instance of a post, for readers who are not as familiar with the acronym; clarify the month and day (eg Nov 11) for readers outside the United States
Alexander Saeri
Karma: 635
Thanks Markus.
I read the US public opinion on AI report with interest, and thought to replicate this in Australia. Do you think having local primary data is relevant for influence?
Do you think the marginal value lies in primary social science research or in aggregation and synthesis (eg rapid and limited systematic review) of existing research on public attitudes and support for general purpose / transformative technologies?
I really appreciate this, Michelle. I’m glad to see this kind of piece on the EA forum.
If you haven’t already, please upload a version to the open science framework as a preprint: https://osf.io/preprints
Thanks for posting this, Nick. I’m interested in how you plan to run this course. Are you the course coordinator? Is there an academic advisor? Who are the intended guest lecturers and how would they work? Who are the intended students?
Michael, thanks for this post. I have been following the discussion about INT and prioritisation frameworks with interest.
Exactly how should I apply the revised framework you suggest? There are a number of equations, discussions of definitions and circularities in this post, but a (hypothetical?) worked example would be very useful.
Very valuable piece, and likely worth a separate write up.
Jeff, this is really lovely and I appreciate you thinking out loud through your reasoning. Is be interested to hear what you think will be hard for them as they grow up with “parts with strong unusual views” and whether you think this would be qualitatively different from other unusual views (eg strongly religious, military family, etc)
Thanks for this excellent piece, Karolina. In my work (research enterprise working w/ government and large orgs), we are constantly trying to get clarity on the implicit theory of change that underpins the organisation, or individual projects. In my experience, the association of ToC with large international development projects has meant that some organisations see them as too mainstream/stodgy/not relevant to their exciting new initiative. But for-profit businesses live or die on their ToC (aka business model), regardless of whether they are large or small.
I’m a researcher based in Australia and have some experience working with open/meta science. Happy to talk this through with you if helpful, precommitting to not take any of your money.
Quick answers, most of which are not one off, donation target ideas but instead would require a fair amount of setup and maintenance.
$250,000 would be enough to support a program for disseminating open / meta science practices in Australian graduate students (within a broad discipline), if you had a trusted person to administrate it.
you could have a prize for best open access paper published by a non PhD
you could fund a conference such as AIMOS https://aimos.community/ (I have no affiliation and no knowledge of how effective this is)
you could ask the Centre for open science people how to effectively spend the money