Caro

• Caro 22 Sep 2023 15:28 UTC

  69 points

  18 ∶ 7

  in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: Will MacAskill has stepped down as trustee of EV UK

  I agree that these decisions are going in the right direction. I think their resignations should have been given earlier given the severity of the conflicts of interest with FTX and the problem of their judgments over the situations.

  (I still appreciate Nick and Will as individuals and value immensely their contribution to the fields)

• Caro 11 Nov 2022 17:27 UTC

  59 points

  23 ∶ 0

  in reply to: elifland’s comment on: The FTX Fu­ture Fund team has resigned

  For what it’s worth, these different considerations can be true at the same time:

  1. “He may have his own axe to grind.”: that’s probably true, given that he’s been fired by CEA.

  2. “Kerry being at CEA for four years makes it more important to pay serious attention to what he has to say even if it ultimately doesn’t check out.”: it also seems like he may have particularly useful information and contexts.

  3. “He’s now the program manager at a known cult that the EA movement has actively distanced itself from”: it does seem like Leverage is shady and doesn’t have a very good culture and epistemic, which doesn’t reflect greatly on Kerry.
     
     So I would personally be inclined to pay close attention to his criticisms of CEA. At the same time, I would need more “positive” contexts from others to be able to trust what he says.

[Question] After re­cent FTX events, what are al­ter­na­tive sources of fund­ing for longter­mist pro­jects?

• Caro 3 Feb 2022 15:54 UTC

  50 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Zach Stein-Perlman’s comment on: The best $5,800 I’ve ever donated (to pan­demic pre­ven­tion).

  I think Carrick has a decent shot, since he is running for a new seat (no incumbent), grew up in the district, has a compelling personal narrative (escaping poverty and then choosing a life of service), and doesn’t seem to be facing any extremely strong competitors. But, because he’s new to Oregon politics, he does need to raise a lot of money to attract the attention and support of local stakeholders and supporters.

Publi­ca­tion of Stu­art Rus­sell’s new book on AI safety—re­views needed

• Caro 11 Nov 2022 17:58 UTC

  33 points

  16 ∶ 2

  in reply to: Sharmake’s comment on: The FTX Fu­ture Fund team has resigned

  + 1 for way more investigations and background checks for major donations, megaprojects, and association with EA.

[Question] What are your fa­vorite ex­am­ples of moral hero­ism/​al­tru­ism in movies and books?

Join a habit and pro­duc­tivity com­pe­ti­tion with other EAs!

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

• Caro 14 Feb 2022 19:19 UTC

  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.

• Caro 10 May 2022 12:13 UTC

  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.

Pen­tathlon: join a whole­some team com­pe­ti­tion with other EAs/​Rationalists

• Caro 17 Nov 2023 14:59 UTC

  22 points

  11 ∶ 0

  on: CaroJ’s Quick takes

  
  If the fallout from FTX has you concerned, it’s worth looking inward at your own organization and potentially other orgs. Are there parallels, like a weak board, conflicts of interest, questionable incentives, or a lack of risk management and crisis planning? Is liquidity an issue, or are there unconventional approaches in management? These red flags warrant closer inspection.

• Caro 3 Feb 2022 19:27 UTC

  22 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: JP Addison’s comment on: The best $5,800 I’ve ever donated (to pan­demic pre­ven­tion).

  Thanks for the question, JP, it’s always good to define those probabilities. I personally estimate his chance of winning to at least 30% (and going to 50%) due to Carrick’s fit, the unusually good fundraising, and the excellent campaign team. This is probably not one for people who want a definite win—it’s so much at play. However, I am very enthusiastic about Carrick’s potential for a very large impact and think it’s worth the shot.

• Caro 6 May 2021 15:30 UTC

  22 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Open Thread: May 2021

  I found the EA forum really lively and thriving these last few months. It’s really a pleasure hanging out here! I also feel more at ease to comment/​post thanks to the aliveness and welcoming community. Congrats to the CEA team for making an awesome job at developing a great space for EA discussions!

• Caro 11 Nov 2022 17:52 UTC

  21 points

  6 ∶ 0

  in reply to: elifland’s comment on: The FTX Fu­ture Fund team has resigned

  I agree that the tone was too tribalistic, but the content is correct.

  (Seems a bit like a side-topic, but you can read more about Leverage on this EA Forum post and, even more importantly, in the comments. I hope that’s useful for you! The comments definitely changed my views—negatively—about the utility of Leverage’s outputs and some cultural issues.)

• Caro 11 Jul 2022 12:29 UTC

  20 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: AnonymousThrowAway’s comment on: Se­nior EA ‘ops’ roles: if you want to undo the bot­tle­neck, hire differently

  This was such a great post and I was nodding along throughout the whole article, except for the part about the importance of hiring people who are “strategically aligned”.

  I think that you often need people at the top of the organization to deeply share the org’s ethics and long-term goals, otherwise you find yourself in very-long debates about theories of change, which ultimately affect a lot of the decisions (I wonder if you have experienced this?). The exception to this is when you find non-EA, but exceptional people who share EA goals while also having their own perspectives and motivations, who are quite flexible and open-minded—those can indeed bring a fresh perspective. But I think those people are rare enough that it would make sense to filter at least a little bit in the interview about the long-term goals, ethics, values of the person, and how they would approach the org’s theory of change.

• Caro 15 Feb 2022 11:34 UTC

  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 (14 May 2022 20:10 UTC; 6 points)

• Caro 2 Sep 2020 18:34 UTC

  17 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: More em­piri­cal data on ‘value drift’

  It would be super interesting to work on how to improve “retainment” with social integration. I was thinking that having a regular gather.town “mega meeting” of EAs may be pretty nice in times of confinement to promote social interactions, project collaborations, etc.

[Link] Stu­art Rus­sell will have an AMA on Red­dit on 12/​16