Working in environment education in Germany and co-leader of the EA Göttingen local chapter.
Anonymous feedback here:
https://www.admonymous.co/felixwolf
Felix Wolf
Karma: 256
It almost feels like there should be 2 global conferences [...].
There are two EA global conferences.
EAG with high restriction and EAGx with a much lower bar for attendance and higher frequency.EA Global is organized by the Centre for Effective Altruism, while EAGx is organized by members of the EA community, with support from the EA Global team [...].
The target audience for EAGx events is broader than EAG, but tends to have a more regional focus.EA Global is mostly aimed at people who have a solid understanding of the core ideas of EA and who are taking significant actions based on those ideas. Many EA Global attendees are already professionally working on effective-altruism-inspired projects or working out how best to work on such projects.
EAGx conferences are primarily for people who are:
Familiar with the core ideas of effective altruism
Interested in learning more about what to do with these ideas
From the region or country where the conference is taking place (or living there)
Suggestion:
Give Community Posts and Recommendations a “load more” button to expand them on the frontpage.
“The moderation team
The current moderators (as of July 2023) are Lorenzo Buonanno, Victoria Brook, Will Aldred, Francis Burke, JP Addison, and Lizka Vaintrob (we will likely grow the team in the near future). Julia Wise, Ollie Base, Edo Arad, Ben West, and Aaron Gertler are on the moderation team as active advisors. The moderation team uses the email address forum-moderation@effectivealtruism.org. Please feel free to contact us with questions or feedback.”
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/yND9aGJgobm5dEXqF/guide-to-norms-on-the-forum#The_moderation_team
And there is also the online team:
https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/team/
For questions like this I would use the intercom, read here how the team wants to get in contact:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/contact
I don’t know the formula, but I think the reading time looks at the number of words and estimates how long someone would need to read this much text.
“The general adult population read 150 – 250 words per minute, while adults with college education read 200 – 300 words per minute. However, on average, adults read around 250 words per minute.”
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-fast-considered-speed-reading-quick-facts-paul-nowak
This text has 3037 words. 3037 / 250 = 12,15 min.
”In the English language, people speak about 140 words per minute. A fast speaker will get to 170 words per minute, a slow speaker will use around 110 words.”
https://debatrix.com/en/speech-calculator/
3037 / 140 = 21,70 min
The AI finished reading this post at 18:50 with the outro left. So we have 18,83 min.
3037 / 18,83 = 161,29 words per minute
The AI voice speaks slightly faster than the average human.
Does this answer your question?
[Linkpost] Alpaca 7B release | Budget ChatGPT for everybody?
Hello Jason,
welcome to the forum! Nice to hear you are comfortable with earning to give as your cause area.
I have some questions regarding your donation website.
Where do you get your rating for the projects? Sometimes you are unable to find data from charity evaluation sites, and then you typically list it with:
Impact Evidence – Strong
Relative Need – Stronger
Financial Transparency – Strongest
Financial Efficiency – Strongest
The last two are usually given the best rating, even if you have no external sources which you normally use to justify the rating.
For example:
https://blessbig.org/evangelism-discipleship-missions/
Do you have further information on the difference between strong, stronger and strongest? What qualifies for each rating?
You mention that your team spend hundreds of hours in research, but never says it anything about the conclusion and methods they used specifically. Can you please provide us with more information how you decide to list an organization and how you choose your ratings?
I have different request, please link your sources.
I was curious about your claim that your work (big blessing?) was mentioned in the Washington Post, and I was unable to find it via Google. Only after I used your name in the search, I found the post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2020/09/23/effective-altruism-charity/
Bless Big was not mentioned.
Thank you and have a great weekend. :)
Hey, really nice website. :)
Podcast to concider: How I Learned to Love Shrimp by Amy Odene & James Ozden https://www.buzzsprout.com/2122817
Edit: Also this list could be worth checking out: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/aSBcRu4h2qH5sRypQ/effective-animal-advocacy-resources (2019)
Hey Manuel,
thanks for pointing this out.
Your first post passed the scrutiny. Congratulations. ;-)
I suggest adding a link to the Amazon page with the book. Like this: https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/019765570X/ or better inside your text like this.
You are welcome.
Thanks for the update. From what I have skimmed it looks really polished. I shared it with my local group. :)
I think this question is more centred about elitism and EA being mostly western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic (WEIRD) than about the culture war between left and right.
Epistemic status: quick google search, uncertain about everything, have not read the linked papers. ~15 minutes of time investment.
Source 1
The Carbon Footprint of ChatGPT
[...] ChatGPT is based on a version of GPT-3. It has been estimated that training GPT-3 consumed 1,287 MWh which emitted 552 tons CO2e [1].
Using the ML CO2 Impact calculator, we can estimate ChatGPT’s daily carbon footprint to 23.04 kgCO2e.
[...] ChatGPT probably handles way more daily requests [compared to Bloom], so it might be fair to expect it has a larger carbon footprint.
Source 2
The carbon footprint of ChatGPT
3.82 tCO₂e per day
Also, maybe take a look into this paper about a different language model:
ESTIMATING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF BLOOM, A 176B PARAMETER LANGUAGE MODEL
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.02001.pdf
Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learning
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.09700.pdf
You can play a bit with this calculator, which was also used in source 1:
ML CO2 Impact
https://mlco2.github.io/impact/
Really nice experience. :)
Hi,
I don’t know this half-marathon in London, so I try to give a picture for everyone else.
The London Landmarks Half Marathon is a closed road, central London run and raised over £37.5 million for charity since its start in 2018.
They have 367 different charities listed for which you can run for, with those ten in a prominent place, see all here:Costs:
”Each charity place costs: £142.50
Charities must purchase a minimum of 5 places.
Places are non-refundable, and cannot be rolled over or transferred.”
If you want to buy less, then each cost £152.50.
Benefit:
I was not able to get numbers on how much money this was able to raise for the charities in comparison with the time and money you have to spend for the event.
Conclusion:
I doubt it’s the best event to spend resources on, but maybe I am mistaken and high impact orgs recommended by Give Well can implement something like this in their fundraising.
Thank you for bringing something up that’s important for you. Maybe add more explanation, so that others have a better understanding about why the llhm would be a good opportunity for fundraising compared to the other alternatives.
Hi Quinn,
this seems like a hurdle to prevent the use of sock puppets to prevent mass voting on your own logo idea. It is common that online voting gets attention of trolls, and they vote for something funny or extreme instead of good. This would partly also be the reason they use voting + the jury.
Voting gets the community engaged, they want to help their favourite creator and can also be part of the jury themselves.
Note: I am not a part of the organizer team and had no influence in the decision to use a threshold or on its height.
Thank you for sharing your experience with volunteering, it’s written lovely. I can practically see a smile through the lines. :)
Hey Julian,
good job at your try to distil important topics into an approachable medium. I will send this to some friends who were discussing the new release of Chat-GPT-4 and its app feature.
Thank you and have a nice weekend. :)
Hello Schwabilissimus,
welcome to EA and congratz to finishing your masters degree!
You can connect with the local community in Germany here:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/community
There are multiple ways to get career advice in EA, here are some examples:
https://80000hours.org/speak-with-us/
https://www.effektiveraltruismus.de/bibliothek/effektive-berufswahlYou can learn from written text, listen to podcasts about career building or schedule a 1o1 with someone in the EA sphere.
I hope you have fun in the forum and find new insights for your journey.
You can have a look into the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP), a new EA organization created through the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program 2021.
Andrés Jimenez Zorilla was also on the how I learned to love shrimp podcast.
I think that if you want to make allegations and point noses into a certain direction, it is really important to make your point clear and argue in good faith. This post fails both boxes in my book.
Hi Ulrik,
I think I understand what you mean. :)
In Germany, we have a diversity group with meetings every two weeks, but I think it is limited to folks living in the region. If you are interested in joining, I’ll ask them.
Thank you for your dedication to the community. I think this post is really important, shows respect to the candidates and what you do has an overall positive impact on the community. I understand that this level of interaction is not possible for every application (e.g. 80k advice), but I am all the more happy to see it in other areas of EA.