guneyulasturker 🔸

On­board­ing Strat­egy for EA Groups

• guneyulasturker 🔸Mar 15, 2025, 4:59 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Carolina Galvani - Sinergia Animal’s comment on: Sin­er­gia (ACE Top Char­ity) Makes False Claims About Helping Millions of Animals

  Hi,

  When do you plan to publish your response?

• guneyulasturker 🔸Feb 28, 2025, 10:37 AM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MichaelStJules’s comment on: Hedg­ing against deep and moral uncertainty

  I think you didn’t misunderstand me.

  If you are not assuming the longterm effects, the intervals below are only for shorttermish effects. (this is what I got from your comment, correct please if It’s wrong)

  H=[100,200]×[−300,50]×[−50,50]

  Isn’t one of the main problems brought by deep moral uncertinity is about how an intervention itself is benefical for the target group or not?

  An intervention effects far future. Far future effect is generally more important than short term effects. So even if our short therm analysis shows the intervention was beneficial it doesn’t mean in aggregate it is net positive. Thus we don’t know the impact of the intervention.

  I believe this was the one of the main problems of moral uncertinity/​cluenessness. What I don’t get is how the model can solve moral uncertinity if it does not takes far longterm effects into account.

  I guess I didn’t specify how far these sets of targets go into the future, so you could assume I’m ignoring far future moral patients, or we can extend the example to include them, with interventions positive in expectation for some sets of far future targets.

  Is the bolded part even possible? Is there interventions that are highly likely to be positive for the target group in the very far future?

  P.S: Thank you for responding my comment this fast even if the post is 5 years old :)

• guneyulasturker 🔸Feb 26, 2025, 12:21 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Hedg­ing against deep and moral uncertainty

  In the caculation below it is assumed that, we know at least one intervention for each cause area that has no negatives so that we use our funds to compensate this net positive with negatives from other interventions.

  However isn’t it hard to assume this? I personally can’t think of an intervention that is definitely positive in the long term. It feels like instead of numbers there should be question marks due to complexity of everything. Am I missing something?

  

• guneyulasturker 🔸Jan 5, 2025, 7:10 PM

  2 points

  2 ∶ 1

  on: How Effec­tive Altru­ists In­fluenced Vi­talik Bu­terin to donate $1 Billion in Crypto Meme Coins

  Great post. Would love to see more stories like this

• guneyulasturker 🔸Jan 3, 2025, 12:07 PM

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: New Year’s Thread: What do you want to achieve this year?

  • Write 12 Forum posts (each for every month)

  • Get As from all of my classes

  • Find a cool summer internship

  • Be done with my cause prio

  Keep up the good habits and positive mental health I’ve been keeping up for some time

• guneyulasturker 🔸Dec 31, 2024, 4:48 PM

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Things EA Group Or­ganisers Need To Hear

  This is extremely relatable. Thank you for sharing it.

• guneyulasturker 🔸Dec 28, 2024, 10:52 AM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Run­ning a Pro­ject-Based In­tro Fel­low­ship

  Thank you for the inspiring post.

  I’d like to introduce projects, buffer time and graduation to my group as well. Is it possible for you to tell me some examples of the projects? I didin’t get it from the post. I’d love to see it in more detail. Here’s my mail gturker21@ku.edu.tr

  Also for not losing some people due to high commitment projects could be optional. Participants choose if they want to be in a project based or reading based group.

  Small note: In my cohorts conversation nuance wise small size 4-6 was much better than bigger size 6-8. When the group is small its easier to feel comrftable and the discussion was much deeper.

10 mis­takes I made dur­ing our uni group succession

• guneyulasturker 🔸Nov 24, 2023, 4:56 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: arghyas’s comment on: Some ad­vice the CEA groups team gives to new uni­ver­sity group organizers

  Are there any updates on your group? How did you select your BMs and how did it go eventually?

• guneyulasturker 🔸Sep 24, 2023, 9:36 PM

  3 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: Tak­ing pri­ori­ti­sa­tion within ‘EA’ seriously

  Thank you for this post it really resonated with me.

  I think people get recruited by EA relatively fast. Go to intro fellowship, attend a eag/​retreat, take ideas seriously, plan your career…

  This process is too fast to actually grasp the complex ideas to do a good cause prioritization. After this 30+ hour EA learning phase, you stop the “learning mindset” and start taking ideas seriously and act on top problems. I was surprised to see the amount of deference in my first EA event. Even a lot of “Experienced EAs” did not have an somewhat understanding on really serious topics like AGI timelines and their implications

  Anyway, I was planning to take a “Prioritization Self-Internship” Where I study for my prioritization full-time for a month and this post made me take that more seriously.

  People get internships to explore really niche and untransferable stuff. Why not do an internship on something more important, neglected, and transferable like working on prioritization?

  I’ll just read, write, and get feedback full-time. I want to have a visual map of arguments at the end of it where it shows all of my mental “turns” on how I ended up on that conclusion. I’d also be able to update my conclusion easily with new information I can add to the map. It’ll also be easy to get criticism with the map as well.

• guneyulasturker 🔸Aug 5, 2023, 7:28 AM

  21 points

  6 ∶ 1

  on: Univer­sity EA Groups Need Fixing

  Thank you for the post, as a new uni group organizer I’ll take this into account.

  I think a major problem may lie in the intro-fellowship curriculum offered by CEA. It says it is an “intro” fellowship but the program discusses longtermism/​x-risk framework disproportionally for 3 weeks. And for a person who just meets EA ideas newly this could bring 2 problems:

  First, as Dave mentioned, some people may want to do good as much as possible but don’t buy longtermism. We might lose these people who could do amazing good.

  Second, EA is weird and unintuitive. Even without ai stuff, it is still weird because of stuff like impartial altruism, prioritization, and earning to give. And if we give this content of weirdness plus the “most important century” narrative to the wanna-be EAs we might lose people who could be EA if they had encountered the ideas with a time for digestion.

  This was definitely the case for me. I had a vegan advocacy background when I enrolled in my first fellowship. It was only 6 weeks and only one week was given to longtermism. Now I do believe we are in the most important century after a lot of time thinking and reading but If I was given this weird framework from the start, I may have been scared and taken a step back from EA because of the overwhelming weirdness and cultish vibes

  Maybe If we slow down the creation of “ai safety people” by cutting the fellowship to 6 weeks and maybe offering a 2-week additional track program for people who are interested in longtermism. Or by just giving them resources, having 1:1s or taking them to in-depth programs.