Independent researcher on Evidential Cooperation in Large Worlds and general acausal stuff whatever catches my fancy- Looking for research collaborators.
I try to check the EA Forum very infrequently. If you wanna get in touch, you can use my admonymous link and leave your email address there, so I can reply to you!
You can also just send me thoughts and questions anonymously!
So, I don’t understand the double standard, where those subject to false allegations don’t enjoy anonymity, and those making the false allegations do get to enjoy anonymity.
I don’t think all people in the replies were arguing that Ben’s initial post was okay and deanonymizing Alice and or Chloe would be bad (which I think you would call a double standard, which I’m not commenting on right now). Some probably do but some probably think that Ben’s initial post was bad and that deanonymizing Alice and or Chloe would also be bad and that we shouldn’t try to correct one bad with another bad, which doesn’t look like a double standard to me.
Oh man, tough situation, and also congrats and this sounds awesome and admiration that you’re thinking about this question.
As other commenters, I don’t know the first thing about patents. Have you talked to a lawyer, including to figure out whether you can patent in a way that doesn’t involve the Tech Transfer office (so much)?
Not sure about the claim but possible! I certainly wouldn’t say no to something automatic. But I think if setting it yourself is easy enough, it would still get a bunch of the value! I think if the feature was implemented in a similar way to in-line commenting on LessWrong, where you just hover over the correct line and it offers you a bookmark-button that you just need to click, that would be low-friction enough for people like me to use it. (I think anything that’s two-click might be too much friction)
Within-post bookmarks
I often start posts but they are too long to read them in one go and the fact that I have to do that (or forever forget where I am) creates a big ugh field for me. Solution: Within-post bookmarks! I think it would be amazing if we could mark where we are in a post and the next time, we can just click to get ourselves back there!
(FWIW, I think that’s a major feature of printed media, which I have much less ugh feelings about reading. You can always put it away without it being annoying later on.)
If not about “really bad” stuff then feedback should be consensual as a norm—As a community I think we should want to be opting into feedback rather than assuming everyone wants it.
I agree with this. It seems quite hard to implement well unfortunately. Asking if someone wants to hear some (negative) feedback can make it really hard for the other person to say no and already does some of the damage, so in some sense already takes away from it being truly consensual. There probably is some way to do this skillfully but it seems hard/if there is a way that just works and is easy to apply, I don’t know it. That said, I think asking someone if there wanna hear some feedback and if now is a good time is usually better than nothing.
(That said, we might disagree on the details of in which cases non-consensual feedback is fine.)
People assume I want feedback a lot and frankly, I do, but some of it can be brutal. And I have pretty thick skin. I have been sad for days after EA feedback. I wouldn’t want other people to be treated like this without opting into it
Interesting. I don’t think I’ve made this experience (much—I had this kind of feedback once in 2019). Unless I just can’t think of it right now (very possible, I’m very forgetful and easily miss obvious things), I don’t think people give me much feedback at all. I wonder if some of the difference in what we emphasise comes from a difference in how people treat us based on demographics etc. (I’m a small woman while Nathan is a tall man. I think my conversation style also projects less perceived confidence than his. I would expect most people to expect me to be more sensitive.)
So maybe one unintuitive takeaway could be “offer marginally more feedback to people who most people based on a shallow impression wouldn’t think can take it; be marginally more careful with feedback to people who most people based on a shallow impression would think can take it.”
edit: Some context is that I wrote this post as a reaction to being frustrated over the years with concrete instances of people not sharing important negative feedback and finding it a bit crazy that people don’t do so (not in they are crazy but it’s crazy that the world works that way) - some of this is second-hand knowledge though.
I agree that gentle honesty usually > brutal honesty! I agree that this is important and some people would actually do better by giving (negative) feedback less often and more carefully. Thanks for clarifying!
I just wanted to ask for brutal honesty for me specifically because I wanted to lower the amount of effort necessary to give me feedback and push towards clarity whenever there’s a trade-off between clarity and being gentle—but just for giving feedback to me in particular. I don’t endorse universally doing that for everyone.
My current regime:
Methyl B12, 1000 Mcg, Jarrow (link, not amazon) (roughly 1x week)
Vitamin D3 4000 IU Howard & James (amazon only has with K3 now) (roughly 2x week)
Omega 3 with 400mg DHA, 200mg EPA, 744mg other Omega 3, Astaxanthin 1mg, Igennus (link) (2x/3x a day)
Creatine, Optimum Nutrition, powder, 3g per scoop (link) (1x day) (Gives me digestion issues if I don’t dissolve it with food)
Magnesium Glycinate, Inner Vitality, 280mg (link) (Possibly gives me digestions issues, ~1x day)
Calcium Citrate malate, Pure Nutrition Naturals, 1000mg (link) with D2, K, Zinc, Magnesium Oxide (half the pill ~3x week)
I think B12 is basically a must if you’re vegan and D3 a no-brainer I think. Not so sure about the others. If you want to supplement Magnesium and Calcium, you should pay attention to the form, e.g. magnesium oxide does nothing apart from worsening your digestion (unless you have constipation.)
Ideally, you want to take minerals apart from each other and after meals but probably doing whatever makes you actually take stuff is best and it’s easier to take everything at once/to just take a multisupplement.
For travel and colds only
Zinc Citrate (link), 10mg (take many within the first 24 hours of getting a cold. Don’t chew and just let it melt.)
Dosage is very confusing here. I think the studies that found that zinc might help with the length of colds used around 90mg or something but maximum RDA is half that.
If you take zinc daily, it’s important to also supplement a bit of copper
I also tried:
Acetyl L-Carnitine, Life extension, 500mg (link) with vitamin C. (Possibly gave me heartburn)
B-Complex, Life extension (link) (gave me digestion issues)
If you want to supplement these, they are possibly best on an empty stomach after getting up but again, probably whatever thing people actually stick to is best.
Things I might add/swap some of the above out for:
Iodine
Vitamin A
Vitamin E
Iron
A multivitamin (e.g. 4, which looks pretty good but isn't super easily available. Also considering 1 but it has a weird ingredient list I can't easily interpret)
Vitamin K/K4
Choline/some other things related to vitamin B
Iron is probably pretty important for many people. I get regular iron tests and didn’t need it and it’s bad to oversupplement iron, also, but FWIW, I expect that I’ll have to start taking iron because I started menstruating again.
Things I test for ~twice a year via https://thriva.co/
Iron
Omega 3
B12
B9
D
Misc. other stuff on a rotation depending on what I feel like
Would be excited to hear thoughts/feedback if others have some :)
(Haven’t been on this regime for long and am a bit loose with it, e.g. just travelled for 3 weeks and supplmented ~nothing during that time)
Center on Long-Term Risk (my employer) focuses on reducing s-risk (risks of astronomical suffering.)
(And AFAIK coined the term (long before my times though))
Many large donors (and donation advisors) do not take general applications. This includes Open Philanthropy (“In general, we expect to identify most giving opportunities via proactive searching and networking”), Longview, REG, CERR, CLR, and the new Longtermism Fund.
Grant manager at CLR here—we take general applications to the CLR Fund and would love to get more of them. Note that our grantmaking is specifically s-risk focused.*
Copy pasting another comment of mine from another post over here:
If you or someone you know are seeking funding to reduce s-risk, please send me a message. If it’s for a smaller amount, you can also apply directly to CLR Fund. This is true even if you want funding for a very different type of project than what we’ve funded in the past.
I work for CLR on s-risk community building and on our CLR Fund, which mostly does small-scale grantmaking, but I might also be able to make large-scale funding for s-risk projects ~in the tens of $ millions (per project) happen. And if you have something more ambitious than that, I’m also always keen to hear it :)
*We also fund things that aren’t specifically targeted towards s-risk reduction but still seem beneficial to s-risk reduction. Some of our grants this year that we haven’t published yet are such grants. That said, we are often not in the best position to evaluate applications that aren’t focused on s-risk even if they would have some s-risk-reducing side effects, especially when these side effects are not clearly spelled out in the application.
Automatically create a bibliography with all the links in a post.
Not OP, but I’m guessing it’s at least unclear for the non-safety positions at OpenAI listed but it depends a lot on what a person would do in those positions. (I think they are not necessarily good “by default”, so the people working in these positions would have to be more careful/more proactive to make it positive. Still think it could be great.) Same for many similar positions on the sheet but pointing out OpenAI since a lot of roles there are listed. For some of the roles, I don’t know enough about the org to judge.
Haha, no, it took me quite a bit longer to phrase what I wrote but I didn’t have dedicated non-writing thinking time, e.g. the claim about the expected ratio of future assets seems like something I could sanity check + get a better number for with a pen and pencil and a few minutes but I was too lazy to do that :)
(And I can’t let false praise of me stand)
edit to also comment on the substantial part of your comment: Yes, that takeaway seems good to me!
edit edit: Although I’d caveat that s-risk is less mature than general longtermism (more “pre-paradigmatic” for people who like that word), so there might be less (obvious) to do for founders/leaders right now and that can be very frustrating. We still always want to hear about such people.
last edit?: And as in general longtermism, if somebody is interested in s-risk and has really high EtG potential, I might sometimes prefer that. Especially given what I said above about founder/leader type people. Something within an order of magnitude or two of FTX F for s-risk reduction would obviously be a huge win for the space and I don’t think it’s crazy to think that people could achieve that.
I didn’t run this by anyone else in the s-risk funding space, so please don’t hold others to these numbers/opinions.
Tl;dr: I think this is probably right in direction but with lots of caveats. In particular, it’s still the case that s-risk has a lot of money (~low hundreds $m) compared to ideas/opportunities at least right now and at least possibly more so than general longtermism. I think this might change soon since I expect s-risk money to grow less than general longtermist money.
edit: I think s-risk is ideas constrained when it comes to small grants and funding (and ideas) constrained for large grants/investments.
I’d estimate s-risk to have something in the low hundreds $m in expected value (not time-discounted) of current assets specifically dedicated to it. Your question is slightly hard to answer since I’m guessing OpenPhil and FTXF would fund at least some s-risk projects if there were more proposals/more demand for money in s-risk. Also, a lot of funded people and projects who don’t work directly on s-risk still care about s-risk. Maybe that should be counted somehow. Naively not counting these people and OpenPhil/FTXF money at all and comparing current total assets in general longtermism vs. s-risk:
In absolute terms: Yup, general longtermism definitely has much more money (~two orders of magnitude.) My guess is that this ratio will grow bigger over time and that it will in expectation grow bigger over time. (~70% credence for each of the claims? Again confused about how to count OpenPhil and FTX F money and how they’ll decide to spend money in the future. If I stick to not counting them as s-risk money at all, then >70% credence.)
Per person working on s-risk/general longtermism: Would still say yes although I don’t have a good way to count s-risk people and general longtermist people. Could be closer to even and probably not (much) more than an order of magnitude difference. Again, quick and wild guess is that the difference will in expectation grow larger over time, but less confident in this than my guess about how the ratio of absolute money will develop. (55%?)
Per quality-adjusted idea/opportunity to spend money: Unsure. I’d (much) rather have more money-eating ideas/opportunities to reduce s-risk than more money to reduce s-risk but I’m not sure if this is more or less the case compared to general longtermism (s-risk has both fewer ideas/opportunities and less money). Also don’t know how this will develop. Arguably, the ratio between money and idea/opportunity also isn’t a great metric because you might care more about absolutes here. I think some people might argue that s-risk is less funding constrained compared to ideas-constrained than general longtermism. This isn’t exactly what you’ve asked for but still seems relevant. OTOH, having less absolute money does mean that the s-risk space might struggle to fund even one really expensive project.
edit: I do think if we had significantly more money right now, we would be spending more money now-ish.
Per “how much people in the EA community care about this issue”: Who knows :) I’m obviously both biased and in a position that selects for my opinion.
Funding infrastructure: Funding in s-risk is even more centralized than in general longtermism, so if you think diversification is good, more s-risk funders are good :) There are also fewer structured opportunities for funding in s-risk and I think the s-risk funding sources are generally harder to find. Although again, I assume one could easily apply with an s-risk motivated proposal to general longtermist places, so it’s kind of weird to compare the s-risk funding infrastructure to the general longtermist funding infrastructure.
I wrote this off the cuff and in particular, might substantially revise my predictions with 15 minutes of thought.
If you or someone you know are seeking funding to reduce s-risk, please send me a message. If it’s for a smaller amount, you can also apply directly to CLR Fund. This is true even if you want funding for a very different type of project than what we’ve funded in the past.
I work for CLR on s-risk community building and on our CLR Fund, which mostly does small-scale grantmaking, but I might also be able to make large-scale funding for s-risk projects ~in the tens of $ millions (per project) happen. And if you have something more ambitious than that, I’m also always keen to hear it :)
Thanks for asking! We would definitely consider later starts if people aren’t available earlier and I would be surprised if we rejected a strong candidate just on the basis that they are only available a month later. There’s some chance we would shorten the default fellowship length (not necessarily by the same number of weeks that they would start later) for them, though but we would discuss this with them first. I think if they would only accept the fellowship if it starts later and is the original 9 weeks long, this would increase the threshold for accepting them somewhat, but again, I would be surprised if we rejected a very strong candidate just on the basis. (I think it would only matter for edge cases.) It also depends a bit on what other applications we get: E.g. if we get many strong applications for Germans who can only start later, we would probably be much more happy to accommodate all of them.
Thanks for the question! It’s unclear whether we’ll run an S-Risk Intro Fellowship in this precise format again. We are fairly likely to run intro events with similar content in the future though. I think this will most likely happen on an annual or semi-annual basis.
Some data that I didn’t formally write up and put in the post (mostly for time reasons) on how past fellows evaluated the fellowship:
2021
10 out of 14 fellows filled in the fellowship feedback survey:
10 of 10 respondents answered “Are you glad that you participated in the fellowship” with 5⁄5 (“hell yeah”)
9 of 10 respondents answered “If the same program happened next year, would you recommend a friend (with similar background to you before the fellowship) to apply?” with 10⁄10 (“strongly yes).
1 of 10 fellows rated the question with 9⁄10.
4 of 10 respondents answered “To what extent was the fellowship a good use of your time compared to what you would otherwise have been doing” with “notably more valuable (3-10x the counterfactual)”
3 of 10 respondents answered “To what extent was the fellowship a good use of your time compared to what you would otherwise have been doing” with “Much more valuable (10-30x the counterfactual)”
1 of 10 respondents answered “To what extent was the fellowship a good use of your time compared to what you would otherwise have been doing” with “Far more valuable (>30x the counterfactual)”
1 of 10 respondents answered “To what extent was the fellowship a good use of your time compared to what you would otherwise have been doing” with “Somewhat more valuable (1-3x the counterfactual)”
1 of 10 respondents did not answer the question
It’s possible that the respondents were anchored by the possible options for the last question: There was one option “about as valuable” and 4 options each in the directions more and less valuable. The lowest respondents could go was “not at all valuable (<10% of counterfactual)”
The survey was not anonymous (although the name field was optional and one respondent chose not to enter their name) and several of the respondents were either in employment, on a grant, or on a trial with us at the time of responding.
2020
7 out of 9 fellows filled in the fellowship feedback survey:
6 of 7 respondents answered “Are you glad that you participated in the fellowship” with 5⁄5 (“hell yeah”)
1 of 7 respondents did not answer this question
3 of 7 respondents answered “To what extent was the fellowship a good use of your time compared to what you would otherwise have been doing” with “Much more valuable (10-30x the counterfactual)”
3 of 7 respondents answered “To what extent was the fellowship a good use of your time compared to what you would otherwise have been doing” with “notably more valuable (3-10x the counterfactual)”
1 of 7 respondents answered “To what extent was the fellowship a good use of your time compared to what you would otherwise have been doing” with “much more valuable (>30x the counterfactual)”
We did not ask the question of whether they would recommend the program to someone similar to them this year.
The survey was anonymous in 2020. Several of the respondents were either in employment, on a grant, or on a trial with us at the time of responding.
Again, I haven’t actually read this, but this article discusses intransitivity in asymmetric person-affecting views, i.e. I think in the language you used: The value of pleasure is contingent in the sense that creating new lives with pleasure has no value. But the disvalue of pain is not contingent in this way. I think you should be able to directly apply that to other object-list theories that you discuss instead of just hedonistic (pleasure-pain) ones.
An alternative way to deal with intransitivity is to say that not existing and any life are incomparable. This gives you the unfortunate situation that you can’t straightforwardly compare different worlds with different population sizes. I don’t know enough about the literature to say how people deal with this. I think there’s some long work in the works that’s trying to make this version work and that also tries to make “creating new suffering people is bad” work at the same time.
I think some people probably do think that they are comparable but reject that some lives are better than neutral. I expect that that’s rarer though?
person-affecting view of ethics, which longtermists reject
I’m a longtermist and I don’t reject (asymmetric) person(-moment-)affecting views, at least not those that think necessary ≠ only present people. I would be very hard-pressed to give a clean formalization of necessary people though. I think it’s bad if effective altruists think longtermism can only be justified with astronomical waste-style arguments and not at all if someone has person-affecting intuitions. (Staying in a broadly utilitarian framework. There are, of course, also obligation-to-ancestor-type justifications for longtermism or similar.) The person-affecting part of me just pushes me in the direction of caring more about trajectory change than extinction risk.
Since I could only ever give very handwavey defenses of person-affecting views and even handwaveier explanations of my overall moral views: Here’s a paper by someone that AFAICT is at least sympathetic to longtermism and discusses asymmetric person-affecting views. (I have to admit I never got around to read the paper.) (Writing a paper on how an asymmetric person-affecting view obviously also doesn’t necessarily mean that the author doesn’t actually reject person-affecting views)
Yes, you’re totally right that I was just speaking about the range and not the expectation! That’s part of the reason why I said none of the points I made are decisive for working on s-risk. I was only providing arguments against the position that the range is symmetric, which I often see people take.