Caro

• CaroMay 13, 2022, 9:38 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: John_Maxwell’s comment on: Why Helping the Flynn Cam­paign is es­pe­cially use­ful right now

  Thanks for the suggestion, I’m going to definitely consider that. I’m a bit worried about feeding the troll… Maybe something more focused on why I think he’s really a good candidate, and more detailed?

• CaroMay 13, 2022, 9:29 PM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Why Helping the Flynn Cam­paign is es­pe­cially use­ful right now

  It is still useful to donate until Sunday!

  I just talked with someone in Carrick’s campaign and they said that there are still two more days for ads to be useful. The PAC has its own ads but they don’t show Carrick’s speaking. The campaign has better, more personable ads that people like better but the campaign can’t use the PAC’s funding for those better ads.

  And we have another Fermi estimate of the ROI on a donation to Carrick’s campaign!
  

  ’There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Let’s assume that the House as a whole holds ¹⁄₄ of the total influence over the federal government’s spending, as one half of the legislative branch. Naïvely, Carrick’s influence would therefore be 1/​(4*435), or 1/​(1,740).
  

  If Carrick is elected, over two years the government will have $3.2T in discretionary spending. If Carrick can influence his share (1/​1,740) of that, he’ll influence about $1.8 billion.

  How much difference can your donation make? One regression I saw suggested that every 10x increase in a candidate’s funding predicted about 5 percentage points greater vote share. (To be fair, this was for Senate races, and just looking at correlations, but this is the best model I could find after some quick Googling.)
  

  So let’s say Carrick has about $1M raised so far. And since it’s a close race, let’s say if Carrick gains 5 percentage points of the vote, his probability of winning goes up 25 percentage points.
  

  Multiplying that through, we get that for every dollar you donate to Carrick’s campaign, in expectation Carrick will influence $51 of federal spending:
  

  

  Carrick’s “share” of federal discretionary budget if he wins * federal discretionary budget over 2 years * $1 as proportion of a log increase in funding * increased probability Carrick wins from a log increase in funding.
  

  Let’s assume that Carrick is politically constrained and that only 10% of that “share” is directed towards projects that are competitive with a major longtermist funder’s last dollar. Even so, you would get that donating to Carrick has more than a 5x multiplier on your donations as compared to other opportunities.

  But I actually think this is probably a big underestimate. For one thing, this does not account for the non-budgetary ways Carrick can create value, such as enhanced regulation, oversight, debate. Carrick winning would also make substantial investments in EAs’ political influence, such as in getting useful information for the next generation of candidates, socializing EA ideas, and making useful introductions.

  But even the dollar calculation is probably low. Getting Carrick elected would significantly improve (maybe by 10 percentage points) the probability of a $30billion dollar pandemic preparedness bill being passed. This alone would surpass my Fermi estimate.
  

  This is why I’ve maxed out to Carrick. I hope you will too.′

  Thanks to my anonymous friend for this great estimate.
  

  What links here?

  • Friends or rel­a­tives in Ore­gon? Please let us know! Up­dates & ac­tions to help Car­rick win by Peter4444 (May 14, 2022, 5:11 AM; 20 points)

• CaroMay 10, 2022, 6:42 PM

  7 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Why Helping the Flynn Cam­paign is es­pe­cially use­ful right now

  Here’s an ITN-style analysis from an anonymous friend and me.
  

  1. Neglectedness. Very few candidates put pandemic preparedness and preserving future generations as their top priorities. Also, given how important it is to have flexible spending from small donors compared to big donors, we could say that $3k increases his effective level of funding by 0.1%.

  2. Tractability. A doubling in funding could increase probability of the campaign winning by 10% (i.e. 30->40%).

  3. Importance. The value of a win is worth $N

  4. The calculation. Then the value of a $3k donation is $N * 0.1% * 10%.

  N has to be greater than ~$30M for it to be worth donating. Seems highly likely given Carrick’s expertise in, and interest in pandemic prevention and other issues that are important from a longterm standpoint. Another (related) way to look at it is that if you think that large donors who contributed to the campaign are making the right choice, then small donors donating to the campaign itself are having a severalfold bigger impact per dollar (because their spending is less restricted).

• CaroMay 10, 2022, 12:14 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Why Helping the Flynn Cam­paign is es­pe­cially use­ful right now

  I’m genuinely curious: if you’re considering donating but haven’t yet, what are your key questions/​cruxes?

  Feel free to answer here and/​or DM me.

  I’m organizing a small group discussion around this and your questions would help direct the conversation. Also maybe some people can answer here!

  If you’re interested in chatting casually about this, please DM-me :)
  

• CaroMay 10, 2022, 12:13 PM

  23 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Why Helping the Flynn Cam­paign is es­pe­cially use­ful right now

  Why are you volunteering for the campaign?

  I’m a volunteer for the campaign because

  • I am convinced that Carrick is an exceptional candidate because of his track record of making big, impactful things happen. Examples: co-founding GovAI and CSET—which are top references in AI governance --, saving potentially thousands of lives by clearing a roadblock to a nationwide vaccination program, and securing a court decision that reallocated over $1 billion to high impact health programs by manually going through over 1,000 pages of accounting documentation.

  • Also, by all accounts from his friends and colleagues, is very honest and generally a good and kind person.

  • would have a huge direct impact by being a champion to neglected and very important cause areas, like pandemic preparedness.

  • would give a lot of information to future candidates interested in preserving future generations

  • would gain a lot by being in Congress ASAP so that he can build experience and become even more impactful in the next few years. By being an elected official, Carrick enters a new “reference class” that puts him in a better position to have very impactful roles later. I think Carrick has a substantial chance of becoming one day in charge of the US national response to extreme risks, such as a pandemic or a technological disaster. 19 out of 45 US Presidents served in Congress and 5 out of 45 US Presidents went to Yale Law School, as he did. So maybe Carrick would have a 1 in 1000 or 10,000 chance of becoming a US president, and an even higher chance of becoming “simply” extremely influential in US policy.

• CaroMay 7, 2022, 9:59 AM

  13 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: DPiepgrass’s comment on: Small and Vulnerable

  (just a note that it’s completely possible to be a bit silly when you’re a kid, eg play with Barbie Dolls, read romance novels, swoon for the next Bieber (or the next Taylor Swift), and fret about having too few shoes and dresses… and still be extremely attached to EA principles and dedicate one’s life to EA ideas. I did all the above and I would describe myself as high-curiosity, high-openness, high-altruism, thoughtful and really trying to be epistemically strong… I think it’s ok to be a bit silly when you’re a kid or a teenager… and also still a bit silly when you’re an adult? Not sure those “silly stuff” are actually deal-breakers to be ridiculously impactful later on? )

• CaroMay 5, 2022, 11:59 AM

  12 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Be­ware In­visi­ble Mistakes

  I also think that having friends, colleagues, and coaches who are very honest with you is extremely important because invisible mistakes are sometimes especially hard to spot. Maybe you got a very fancy-looking new position, but it’s way “less good” than you doing a more hidden but higher impact job. The rest of the world will tell you that it’s great; so you need transparent friends and be in a sufficiently good mental space to receive this feedback.

  Reviewing your decision on your own every X months and trying to make predictions about what “really good impact” looks like may be a good idea.

• CaroMay 2, 2022, 12:44 PM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MarkusAnderljung’s comment on: What are the best jour­nals to pub­lish AI gov­er­nance pa­pers in?

  Thanks so much, this is very helpful!

[Question] What are the best jour­nals to pub­lish AI gov­er­nance pa­pers in?

Join a habit and pro­duc­tivity com­pe­ti­tion with other EAs!

• CaroMar 21, 2022, 6:20 PM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Neel Nanda’s comment on: Sim­plify EA Pitches to “Holy Shit, X-Risk”

  (Note: I have edited this comment after finding even more reasons to agree with Neel)
  
  I find your answer really convincing so you made me change my mind!

  1. On truth-seeking without the whole “EA is a question”: If someone made the case for existential risks using quantitative and analytical thinking, that would work. We should just focus on just conveying these ideas in a rational and truth-seeking way.

  2. On cause-neutrality: Independently of what you said, you may make the case that the probability of finding a cause that is even higher impact than AI and bio is extremely low, given how bad those risks are; and given that we have given a few years of analysis already. We could have an organization focused on finding cause X, but the vast majority of people interested in reducing existential risks should just focus on that directly.

  3. On getting to EA principles and ideas: Also, if people get interested in EA through existential risks, they can also go to EA principles later on; just like people get interested in EA through charity effectiveness; and change their minds if they find something even better to work on.

  4. Moreover, if we do more outreach that is “action oriented”, we may just find more “action oriented people”… which actually sounds good? We do need way more action.

• CaroMar 4, 2022, 1:57 PM

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Best Coun­tries dur­ing Nu­clear War

  A small contribution to your list: it seems like Indonesia has a lot of natural disaster risks, like earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcano eruptions.

• CaroFeb 27, 2022, 4:23 PM

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: What psy­cholog­i­cal traits pre­dict in­ter­est in effec­tive al­tru­ism?

  Interesting! Before this study, I thought that EAs had two factors, Effectiveness and Altruism, but I defined Effectiveness differently. I thought it referred to something like “optimization mindset” and “being good at thinking quantitatively and strategically”. This would probably have been a defining characteristic of people in business school.

  So I updated my definition of “Effectiveness” in EA. I’d be curious to see more studies about other personality traits!

• CaroFeb 25, 2022, 5:23 PM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: EA Up­dates for March 2022

  Thanks for this!

  Typo: it’s not “Stuart Russell on why he is co-founding Aligned AI” but Stuart Armstrong.

• CaroFeb 15, 2022, 1:41 PM

  7 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Effec­tive Altru­ism with Children

  This is interesting! Would you have any evidence-based evaluation of whether the Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CPI) and such projects were successful? I’m also interested in how they guarantee that children themselves are “safe” notably in the sense that there are no imposed beliefs on them?

• CaroFeb 15, 2022, 11:34 AM

  20 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: The best $5,800 I’ve ever donated (to pan­demic pre­ven­tion).

  Some research on how foreign nationals can get involved (or not) in campaigns that will hopefully provide some clarity here:

  1. A foreign national can volunteer as long as they are not part of the campaign’s decision-making apparatus. There are useful official sources. To start, there is the official Federal Election Commission guidance online. Here they outline that a foreign national can do anything as a volunteer as long as they are not part of the campaign’s decision-making apparatus. So for example, a foreign national can express their opinion online about who to vote and who to donate for. Like, I don’t have an arrangement with Carrick’s campaign. This is explicitly permitted. This is below:

  Page 44: “Foreign national as campaign volunteer Although foreign nationals may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with any federal, state, or local election (see Chapter 5, Section 1), an individual who is a foreign national may participate in campaign activities as an uncompensated volunteer. In doing so, the volunteer must be careful not to participate in the decision-making process of the campaign. The Act and Commission regulations specifically prohibit foreign nationals from participating in the decisions of any person involving electionrelated activity. 52 U.S.C. §30121; 110.20(i). See AO 2004-26 (Weller). For example, a foreign national volunteer may attend committee events and campaign strategy meetings but may not be involved in the management of the committee. 110.20(i); see AOs 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), 2007-22 (Hurysz), 2004-26 (Weller) and 1987-25 (Otaola).”

  2. More specifically, foreign nationals can help with fundraising.

  Also, from the Congressional Research Service’s write-up on the FEC and its advisory opinions:

  Page 3: “FEC Advisory Opinions provide some guidance. Traditional volunteer activities, such as “lit drops, door to door canvassing, handing out literature at transit stations, telephone banking, and get out the vote activities” plainly fall within the exemption and may be provided by foreign nationals, who are similarly free to attend campaign rallies and events and give speeches endorsing their chosen candidate or cause. The FEC has also permitted foreign nationals to design a political committee’s website code, logos, and trademarks without compensation.… But a later Advisory Opinion specifically allowed foreign nationals to participate in fundraising activity, including in the direct solicitation of funds.… Thus, the volunteer exemption for foreign nationals.… what seems to matter is whether the foreign national participates in a political organization’s “decision-making process,” which includes “decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections” as well as “decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.””

  I’ve also looked all over the other statues and can’t find anything prohibiting speech supporting political candidates. It would be really weird if they prohibited this type of speech. America has a very strong free speech tradition that protects even most of the political speech illegal in Europe. Also, in First Amendment jurisprudence there is a hierarchy of protected speech, with political speech at the top. America not allowing people to express an opinion would be… well, really un-American. America’s protection is so strong (weird?) that it even protects the rights of corporations to donate money to campaigns as free speech (Citizens United).

  3. However, donation swapping may be too much of a “substantial assistance”

  “Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal, state or local elections, to a political party committee or for the purchase or construction of an office building by a state or local party committee.” (Source)

  So I would personally hold off from donation swapping. But other forms of speech are accepted.

  What links here?

  • Caro's comment on If EA is no longer fund­ing con­strained, why should *I* give? by Ezra Newman (May 14, 2022, 8:10 PM; 6 points)

A Map to Nav­i­gate AI Governance

• CaroFeb 14, 2022, 7:19 PM

  26 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Sim­plify EA Pitches to “Holy Shit, X-Risk”

  Thanks, Neel, this got me thinking a bunch!

  I think this approach may have a lot of benefits. But it also at least two (related) costs:

  1. We may miss something very core to EA: “EA is a question”. EA is trying to figure out how to do the most good, and then do it. So I think that this big focus on EA as being a “prioritization-focused” movement makes it very special and if there were pitches focused directly on reducing x-risk, we would miss something very core to the movement (and I’m not sure how I feel about it). (as a personal anecdote, I think that it’s the question of EA really made me able to change my mind, and move from working on development aid to climate change to AI).

  2. We may reduce the quality of truth-seeking/​rationality/​”Scout Mindset” of the movement by saying that we already have the answer. By treating EA as a question, the movement has attracted a lot of people who (I think) have interest in being rational and having good epistemic. These norms are very important. Rationality and good epistemics are very valuable to do good, so we should think about how to keep those excellent norms if we shift to a pitch which is “we know how to do the most good, and it’s by reducing x-risks from AI and bio!”—which maybe is already the pitch of several existing organizations who want to change the world. So the pitch may get a different crew. (maybe a great crew too, but not the same).

  In summary, having way more people working on reducing x-risk seems great. But we want to make sure that the “truth-seeking” norms of this movement stay really really high.

• CaroFeb 14, 2022, 11:06 AM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Rachel Shu’s comment on: Any EA Doc­u­menters/​Cine­matog­ra­phers who want to make an EA doc­u­men­tary?

  I’d be very excited to see a collaboration here!

• CaroFeb 10, 2022, 8:49 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: $1000 bounty for your best 2 minute an­swer to an EA ‘fre­quently asked ques­tion’

  When is the deadline to submit?