Hi, I’m Ben! I’m a Research Analyst at Open Philanthropy, though all views I express here are my own.
Before OP I was an independent researcher in global health and biosecurity, and a Charity Entrepreneurship incubatee. I have an MD and undergrad degrees in philosophy, international relations, and neuroscience, all from the University of Sydney.
Not everyone is well connected enough to hear rumours. Newcomers and/or less-well-connected people need protection from bad actors too. If someone new to the community was considering an opportunity with Nonlinear, they wouldn’t have the same epistemic access as a central and long-standing grant-maker. They could, however, see a public exposé.
What a fantastic resource, thanks all! Also may be worth adding, the new National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, which will be delivering a 2024 report based on “a thorough review of how advances in emerging biotechnology and related technologies will shape current and future activities of the Department of Defense“ - delivering it to the DoD, White House, and Congress.
Ooh what about Bob Fischer? He’s a philosophy professor who ran Rethink’s moral weights project and is now on their new Worldview Investigations team! [edit: just saw him suggested in a different comment]
Big +1
Could be good outreach for EA too
also doing interesting work on market shaping mechanisms, esp for pandemics and climate change!
How come, out of curiousity? I haven’t looked into EDCs at all, but on a skim—is it non-neglectedness, weak evidence, both, weak importance, other things?
Richard Fisher could be an interesting one, author of the recent ‘The Long View’
Promote stimulant use can be fine in some cases—eg “have you considered getting an ADHD diagnosis, maybe try mine for a day and see how you feel”
I think this is a bad idea. Suggesting someone ‘get a diagnosis’ is a terrible approach to health and medical advice. Giving someone your own prescribed medication is also a bad idea, and is exactly the kind of norm-crossing ickiness that should be reduced/eliminated. The version I would endorse is:
“Have you considered whether you might have ADHD? It might be a good idea to talk to a doctor about these issues you’re having, as medication can be helpful here.”
Great summary—super clear and helpful. Thanks!
Along similar lines, from a few days ago: Animal Agrocrime: An Overlooked Biological Threat
Just want to say I appreciate your commentary over the past 9 months. Having someone with legal expertise and (what seems to me) a pretty even-handed and sensible perspective is a really valuable contribution.
Cool! One point from a quick skim—the number of animals wouldn’t be lost in many kinds of human extinction events or existential risks. Only a subset would erase the entire biosphere—e.g. a resource-maximising rogue AI, vacuum decay, etc. Presumably with extinction of just humans the animal density of reclaimed land would be higher than current, so the number of animals would rise (assuming it outweighs the end of factory farming).
The implications of human existential risks for animals is interesting, and I can see some points either way depending on the moral theory (e.g. end of factory farming in human extinction, but rise of wild animal suffering; total number and quality of animal lives in a beyond-Earth humanity; potential of a completely re-wilded Earth in a beyond-Earth humanity; risks of astronomical suffering if a beyond-Earth humanity retains the equivalent of factory farming...)
Does anyone else from the UK get a ‘unsupported protocol’ error from the Asterix site? I do, but it doesn’t trigger if I use a VPN.
I love The Mower by Philip Larkin—it captures a deep instinct for kindness, especially towards animals.
Thanks for this—super interesting! One thing I hadn’t caught before is how much the estimates reduce for domain experts in the top quintile for reciprocal scoring—in many cases an order of magnitude lower than that of the main domain expert group!
I think another factor is that HLI’s analysis is not just below the level of Givewell, but below a more basic standard. If HLI had performed at this basic standard, but below Givewell, I think strong criticism would have been unreasonable, as they are still a young and small org with plenty of room to grow. But as it stands the deficiencies are substantial, and a major rethink doesn’t appear to be forthcoming, despite being warranted.
You didn’t provide an alternative, other than the example of you conducting your own private investigation. That option is not open to most, and the beneficial results do not accrue to most. I agree hundreds of hours of work is a cost; that is a pretty banal point. I think we agree that a more systematic solution would be better than relying on a single individual’s decision to put in a lot of work and take on a lot of risk. But you are, blithely in my view, dismissing one of the few responses that have the potential to protect people. Nonlinear have their own funding, and lots of pre-existing ties to the community and EA public materials. A public expose has a much better chance of protecting newcomers from serious harm than some high-up EAs having a private critical doc. The impression I have of your view is that it would have been better if Ben hadn’t written or published his post and instead saved his time, and prefer that Nonlinear was quietly rejected by those in the know. Is that an accurate picture of your view? If you think there are better solutions, it would be good to name them up front, rather than just denigrate public criticism.