EdoArad

• EdoAradJan 30, 2025, 1:32 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Meta Co­or­di­na­tion Fo­rum (2024) /​ Ta­lent Need Survey

  Minor nitpick

  Option 1: The EA movement instantly grows to include 1000 new highly-engaged, aligned EAs.

  Option 2: X people hear about EA in a relatively high-fidelity way (e.g., through a long-form journalistic article).

  ...

  Responses here also reflected wide variation, spanning several orders of magnitude. The median value was 1 million, implying that gaining 1 highly engaged EA was rated roughly 10,000 times more valuable than introducing one person to EA in a relatively high fidelity way.

  Should this be 1,000 times instead? (This also appears at the summary of key results as 10,000)

• EdoAradSep 21, 2024, 6:54 PM

  6 points

  0 ∶ 1

  in reply to: Kevin Afachao’s comment on: Kevin Afachao’s Quick takes

  @Yonatan Cale :)

• EdoAradSep 1, 2024, 5:46 AM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Arnon Houri Yafin’s comment on: How do you deal with the “meat eater” problem

  I don’t think that expanding compassion to animals leads to reduced compassion for aunts and other humans. It could make one’s choices benefit humaunts less, but that’s arguably desirable.

  I do agree that when we find ourselves dispassionate or hateful towards others that’s a sign that we may have stepped wrong at some point in our journey to do the most good

• EdoAradJun 26, 2024, 7:10 AM

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Ben Millwood🔸’s comment on: Does GiveWell still plan to model the un­cer­tainty of their cost-effec­tive­ness es­ti­mates?

  I’m really interested in the answer to this question and happy to say that publicly

• EdoAradJun 25, 2024, 3:35 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Alix Pham’s comment on: In fa­vor of an AI-pow­ered trans­la­tion but­ton on the EA Forum

  I find it’s good enough for me, but I haven’t deeply engaged with really complicated texts

• EdoAradJun 8, 2024, 9:47 AM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Kaleem’s comment on: Kaleem’s Shortform

  Interesting idea! Seems like locusts are halal (same as in Judaism), but that may not be relevant.

  Also found this—https://​​seekersguidance.org/​​answers/​​hanafi-fiqh/​​are-chickens-who-mostly-feed-on-impurities-like-ants-worms-and-insects-impermissible/​​

• EdoAradJun 7, 2024, 6:09 AM

  10 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Amber Dawn’s comment on: Am­ber Dawn’s Shortform

  Great idea!

  If it’d be helpful, I ran a 4 session workshop for people in my local community on “EA research methods”: https://​​docs.google.com/​​document/​​d/​​1VQfVbZSZow_Oq24cnRQpFzykHzIdcG8Jmjx6ctRFxRg/​​edit#heading=h.e6lzi7r45ez

• EdoAradJun 7, 2024, 6:01 AM

  19 points

  7 ∶ 0

  on: In fa­vor of an AI-pow­ered trans­la­tion but­ton on the EA Forum

  Note that Chrome has this feature already

• EdoAradJun 1, 2024, 7:36 PM

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: EdoArad’s comment on: Drexler’s Nanosys­tems is now available online

  (also—insert a grey goo joke)

• EdoAradJun 1, 2024, 7:34 PM

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MikhailSamin’s comment on: Drexler’s Nanosys­tems is now available online

  I’m not sure either—there’s some bug and I didn’t manage to delete them. I’ve moved them to personal blog post and I’m alerting the technical team

• EdoAradMay 30, 2024, 8:38 PM

  7 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: saulius’s comment on: saulius’s Shortform

  So sad that this happens to you again :(

  Thanks for taking the safety measures!

• EdoAradMay 29, 2024, 5:27 PM

  8 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Ofer’s comment on: EA for Jews is hiring — ap­ply now!

  Not run in any way by EA Israel. In fact, I don’t think we even have a particularly strong connection.

• EdoAradMay 29, 2024, 4:36 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Owen Cotton-Barratt’s comment on: Be­ware point es­ti­mates of prob­lem difficulty

  Re your draft, I’d be interested in taking a look :)

  I thought you’ve written something similar here—https://​​globalprioritiesproject.org/​​2015/​​02/​​project-overview-problems-of-unknown-difficulty/​​ (website is currently down 🐛 - archived version)

• EdoAradMay 29, 2024, 3:50 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Be­ware point es­ti­mates of prob­lem difficulty

  nitpick while confused on first reading

  I think $\delta \left(\text{\%increase in resources}\right)$ should be instead $\frac{\delta \left(\text{Total resources}\right)}{\text{Total resources}}$, or else I’m not sure how to interpret it.

• EdoAradMay 29, 2024, 12:38 PM

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Model­ling the out­comes of an­i­mal welfare in­ter­ven­tions: One pos­si­ble ap­proach to the trade-offs be­tween sub­jec­tive experiences

  efinI really loved this piece of work! Great framework and great write-up :)

  In particular, I’m excited about the simplicity and specificity of the pain and pleasure categories, and about how you easily encode ethical worldviews in this context.

  Some questions and observations:

  1. The use of the different worldviews seems to be in order to answer “how likely is it that A > B” rather than to make some form of an expected value calculation (say, “maximal choice worthiness”—Moral Uncertainty book). Have you considered alternative approaches? In particular, it may be harder to accurately aggregate the preferences across worldviews from multiple interventions and it doesn’t take into account how close is the margin by which to rank.

  2. Regarding the credence in each worldview (last column of this table) - if I understand correctly, the process involved making subjective guesses on how much each worldview “makes sense” from 1-5, and then weighing each worldview’s likelihood linearly with that. I understand that this is intended as a first step and a didactical example, but I’m curious about your thoughts on how this could be improved.
     I think there are some delicate points where this may go wrong if done quickly, just fleshing out some thoughts:

     1. The different worldviews need to be completely separated from each other and together account for most of the relevant worldviews.

     2. The individual subjective guess per worldview should take into account how likely that is as opposed also to similar worldviews.

     3. Ranking of 1-5 in this setting should be linearly proportional to its probability.

  3. The proposed definitions of the degrees of pleasure use some sort of a preference-based equivalence between the mirrored degrees of pain. Doesn’t that assume that the value of pain-pleasure is symmetric? (perhaps the explanation is that the animal’s preference doesn’t equal its value, but that feels a bit off to me)

  4. As you write, comparing different species can be complicated. If I understand correctly, one approach you suggest would be to start by saying that, say, one unit of hurtful pain hour is not species-dependent. Then, to account for species differences we would “shrink” the pain-pleasure scale for each animal in some way. Is this a correct interpretation? If so, doesn’t that stand against the behavioral definitions of the pain categories?

  Thanks again! :)

• EdoAradMay 22, 2024, 6:13 PM

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jason’s comment on: edoarad’s Shortform

  Yeah, I mostly agree. My thinking is that maybe there are some cases where there are non-obvious ingredients (like the enzymes and microbes added to make cheese). But mostly I’m interested in the other direction—getting animal product replacements more simple to make use of.

  Say, I’m sure that the cultivated meat industry has interest in being able to label their meat as something close to a single ingredient, rather than to write all of the ingredients in the cellular medium.

  But, yeah, I am not hopeful that there’d be a really good intervention along these lines

• EdoAradMay 22, 2024, 12:15 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Pro­ce­du­ral Ex­ec­u­tive Func­tion, Part 3

  [the link to the 101 is 404; should it direct to https://​​daystareld.com/​​executive-dysfunction-101/​​ ?]

• EdoAradMay 21, 2024, 12:28 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: edoarad’s Shortform

  In food ingredient labeling, some food items do not require expending. E.g, Article 19 from the relevant EU regulation:

  1. The following foods shall not be required to bear a list of ingredients:

     1. fresh fruit and vegetables, including potatoes, which have not been peeled, cut or similarly treated;

     2. carbonated water, the description of which indicates that it has been carbonated;

     3. fermentation vinegars derived exclusively from a single basic product, provided that no other ingredient has been added;

     4. cheese, butter, fermented milk and cream, to which no ingredient has been added other than lactic products, food enzymes and micro-organism cultures essential to manufacture, or in the case of cheese other than fresh cheese and processed cheese the salt needed for its manufacture;

     5. foods consisting of a single ingredient, where:

        1. the name of the food is identical to the ingredient name; or

        2. the name of the food enables the nature of the ingredient to be clearly identified.

  An interesting regulatory intervention to promote replacement of animal products could be to either require expansion of the details on these animal products (seems unlikely, but may be possible to push from a health perspective) or to also similarly exempt key alt proteins.

  fyi: @vicky_cox

• EdoAradMay 17, 2024, 1:15 PM

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: LewisBollard’s comment on: AMA: Lewis Bol­lard, Pro­gram Direc­tor of Farm An­i­mal Welfare at OpenPhil

  From ChickenWatch’s Commitment Tracker, it seems like there’s a decrease in the number of BCC and in total commitments

  Year	Better Chicken commitment	Total commitments
  2023	11	149
  2022	19	253
  2021	35	329
  2020	60	364
  2019	53	494
  2018	26	480
  2017	77	389

  (I simply counted descriptions that included “Better Chicken” as a substring, and haven’t double-checked for errors)

  [It doesn’t necessarily mean that things are getting worse. ChickenWatch could be missing more stuff, maybe larger commitments are bundled together, commitments could generally be getting larger in their ask or the target corporate, etc.]

• EdoAradApr 1, 2024, 12:45 PM

  8 points

  2 ∶ 1

  in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: Cause Area Tier List