Håkon Harnes

Karma: 165

Håkon Harnes 7 Dec 2023 22:00 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: JKitson’s comment on: Taiwan’s military complacency.
It’s unclear to me why you think the procurement of tanks would demonstrate more of a closeness to the US than any other weapons system purchased from the US? It’s a weird kind of trade-off indeed if they can choose between the US-made patriot launchers (as you suggest) or the US-made Abrams tanks, and they go for the tanks despite a clear military inferiority? I honestly don’t follow the reasoning here.

Håkon Harnes 4 Dec 2023 14:23 UTC
5 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Taiwan’s military complacency.
Hi JKitson!

Thanks for posting this summary and analysis, I learned something new about the Taiwanese military today!

In the post you write this about the procurement of new tanks:
These units would be highly vulnerable and are of questionable use in a scenario where the enemy dominates the air. Ukraine has disabled thousands of Russian tanks and infantry fighting vehicles using drones, showing armoured vehicles vulnerability even in a situation where neither side has air superiority.
While it is true that drones, among many other factors, have made armoured vehicles and tanks more vulnerable on the modern battlefield, one would be wise to take note that this has resulted in neither Ukraine nor Russia using less of them. If anything we are seeing heavy reliance on armour for protection on a battlefield shaped by constant surveillance, artillery fire, loitering munitions and combat drones. That being said, we should be careful in drawing lessons from Ukraine and applying them to other contexts. Important factors are vastly different in Taiwan, such as geography, logistics, technology available to both sides in relevant quantities and quality etc.

One interesting thing to note regarding air superiority when looking at the war in Ukraine could be the seeming effectiveness of anti-air systems. On paper the Russian air force vastly outnumbers the Ukrainian, yet they have not been able to establish complete air superiority. On the other hand, we’ve also seen examples of very successful suppression of anti-air capabilities in fairly modern conflicts by a technologically superior attacker, for example during the gulf war or during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

My current take is that specifics and circumstance matter a lot and we should not be too quick to generalise from recent conflicts.

I had a quick peek at your substack and was unable to find anything on your background. I was wondering if you have any expertise or background from military analysis? It’s completely fine if you wish to stay anonymous of course, and I’m not appealing to credentialism either, simply curious :)

I’m also curious if you could point me to what you believe is the strongest case for Taiwan’s current strategy? What are the best arguments and / or proponents for the status quo you know of?

Thanks again, I really enjoyed the post!

Håkon Harnes 24 Nov 2023 14:54 UTC
29 points
8 ∶ 0
on: AMF – Reflecting on 2023 and looking ahead to 2024
Thanks for the great work you guys in AMF are doing!

20 million cases of malaria averted is a staggering number. I’m Norwegian, and as a comparison point those 20 million cases are being averted for around half the cost of the new Oslo public library. Admittedly it’s a very nice library, but I have a feeling we would not be building it if it meant every Norwegian citizen had to suffer through malaria 8 times over and something like 80 000 mostly young children died.

Let’s keep pushing the global resource allocation in a slightly more sane and equitable direction. Thanks for an inspiring post, best wishes for 2024!

Håkon Harnes 18 Nov 2023 21:31 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
on: TED talk on Moloch and AI
I liked the talk. I also loved the boots! Great job.

Håkon Harnes 11 Aug 2023 11:58 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Will Howard’s comment on: Manifolio: The tool for making Kelly optimal bets on Manifold Markets
Ah, yes, the CORS policy would be an obstacle. It might be possible to contact them and ask to be added to the list.

Håkon Harnes 11 Aug 2023 11:16 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Manifolio: The tool for making Kelly optimal bets on Manifold Markets
This is a neat tool!

Just a little heads up for people in terms of privacy. If you use the built-in helper to place your bets, your API key is sent to the owner of the manifolo service. I’ve glanced over the source code, and it does not seem to be stored anywhere. It’s mainly routed through the backend for easier integration with an SDK and some logging purposes (as far as I can tell). However, there aren’t really any strong guarantees that the source code publicly available is in fact the source code running on the URL.

I have no reason to doubt this, but in theory your API key might be stored and could be misused at a later date. For example, a holder of many API keys could place multiple bets quickly from many different users to steer a market or make a quick profit before anyone realizes.

I don’t think there is any technical reason why the communication with the manifold APIs couldn’t just happen on the frontend, so it might be worth looking into?

In general one should be very careful about pasting in API keys anywhere you don’t trust. Seems like the key for manifold gives the holder very wide permissions on your account.

Again, I have no reason to suspect that there is anything sinister going on here, but I think it’s worth pointing out nevertheless!

Thanks for posting the source code as well! Personally I did use my API key while testing and I do trust the author :)

Håkon Harnes 6 Aug 2023 10:05 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: GiveWell’s comment on: Bill Gates’ 400 million dollar bet—First Tuberculosis Vaccine in 100 years?
Fantastic, thanks for the update Miranda!

Håkon Harnes 13 Jul 2023 11:13 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Fatebook: the fastest way to make and track predictions
I absolutely love that it infers resolving dates from the text! I was positively delighted when the field populated itself when I wrote “by the beginning of september”. This is especially important on mobile.

Excited to see if this is a useful tool. Very polished, nice work!

Håkon Harnes 4 Jul 2023 12:00 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Joel Tan’s comment on: Bill Gates’ 400 million dollar bet—First Tuberculosis Vaccine in 100 years?
Saving someone a google search hopefully:
XDRTB = Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis
MDRTB = Multi drug-resistant tuberculosis

Seems like it’s my week of learning a bit about tuberculosis! What’s up with the acronyms in the tuberculosis-space anyways? TB isn’t that much shorter than tuberculosis.

Håkon Harnes 4 Jul 2023 11:52 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: Bill Gates’ 400 million dollar bet—First Tuberculosis Vaccine in 100 years?
I did a little more digging, and through a WHO report referenced by the Gates Foundation in their article, I think I’ve found something that could be the source of the claims in the report I skimmed.

Portnoy, A., et al. (2022). The cost and cost-effectiveness of novel tuberculosis vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: a modelling study. medRxiv, 2022.05.04.22274654. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.04.22274654

Interestingly, the baseline scenario assumes a vaccine price similar to you, around 5 USD per dose in a 2-dose regiment, which in my naive reading seems to confirm that the bulk of the costs are in fact in logistics. Of course, the headline is that even if the costs here are higher than one would like, it’s still hugely cost-effective in terms of return on investment, and great news for the world as a whole!

Even if (on an extremely shallow read) it seems like it doesn’t quite cross GiveWell’s bar for cost-effectiveness. Unless I am confused about something. Again, if anyone knows if GiveWell has a take on this, I’d be very happy to see :)

Håkon Harnes 4 Jul 2023 9:12 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: Bill Gates’ 400 million dollar bet—First Tuberculosis Vaccine in 100 years?
“In the report I’ve referenced they project around 12-14 billion USD for vaccinations from 2027 to and including 2030, summing to around 50 billion. And this is assuming the vaccine has been developed. They put another 10 billion on top for vaccine R&D.”—

Where did you get that from?” I couldn’t find the 10 billion figure for R&D I thought that was part of their total.
Thanks for pointing out I forgot to mention where I got that from! It’s from Table B. Resources needed to accelerate R&D of new TB tools, 2023–2030, page 15 in the report.

I’m sure gates foundation are working very hard on keeping costs down, and let’s hope they succeed! I do have a feeling that the bulk of the costs for vaccinations come from the distribution and logistics rather than the production costs, but this is just my vague intuition.

New Incentives, a GiveWell recommended charity, uses roughly 100 USD per vaccination.

I’m not sure how this new trial impacts Stop TB Partnership’s expectations for development costs, but hopefully it turns out to be much cheaper than their expert group estimated at the time of the report being written :)

If you have the time I’m sure they’d be happy to answer an email!

Håkon Harnes 3 Jul 2023 15:06 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: Bill Gates’ 400 million dollar bet—First Tuberculosis Vaccine in 100 years?
Indeed, inspiring stuff!

I have no idea what’s needed in terms of production costs, distribution costs etc. but it’s an interesting back of the envelope calculation nevertheless.

In the report I’ve referenced they project around 12-14 billion USD for vaccinations from 2027 to and including 2030, summing to around 50 billion. And this is assuming the vaccine has been developed. They put another 10 billion on top for vaccine R&D.

This is what they write in the report:
Adequate funding must be mobilized to support the manufacturing, procurement and distribution of vaccines, especially in high-burden settings.
This ist he first Global Plan to estimate the costs for rolling out new TB vaccines. Global costs to implement a new vaccine are projected to average US$ 13.15 billion annually from 2027 through 2030, totalling US$ 52.6 billion. Modelled cost estimates include costs to scale up the use of a two-dose TB vaccine, reaching at least 60% of adults and adolescents by 2028, and to maintain 60% coverage or more after that. The cost of vaccine dose units and the operational cost for vaccine delivery have been informed by the experience of rolling out COVID-19 vaccines.

- Page 71, under “Invest adequate resources in vaccine roll- out and scale-up”, The Global Plan to End TB 2023-2030 [PDF]

I did read parts of chapter 9 on costs to try to get a better picture of what goes into these estimates, but didn’t find anything very detailed in my quick scan. So I’m not sure exactly how they come up with these numbers.

It does seem that this is assuming world-wide distribution, and that the costs vary quite a bit depending on the particulars of any specific region. See f.ex. Table 19 on page 145 in the report.

Håkon Harnes 3 Jul 2023 13:10 UTC
30 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Nick_Anyos’s comment on: Decision-making and decentralisation in EA
Talking from my time in EA NTNU, my experience was indeed the complete opposite. Funding and follow up from CEA was excellent, kind and thoughtful. There were virtually zero strings attached and at no point did I feel like they were controlling.

The feelings of other organisers might differ of course, but I’ve not heard about this from anyone personally, and I did talk to quite a lot of student group leaders around 2017-2019.

Again, this is just my experience.

Håkon Harnes 3 Jul 2023 12:17 UTC
20 points
4 ∶ 0
on: Bill Gates’ 400 million dollar bet—First Tuberculosis Vaccine in 100 years?
Very cool!

Seems like this is an investment related to the Global Plan to End TB, 2023-2030. Over the period they call for ~250 billion USD in funding^[1]. They state that in the status quo scenario we lose 234 million DALYs^[2] to TB. It’s a little hard to get the exact number, but looks like they aim to reduce this by around 50% over the period as a whole (?). Around 2 000 USD per DALY on average, which is a fair bit higher than what GiveWell cites for their top charities. I should note that some of the costs are in R&D which will pay dividends beyond 2030.

Given that they aim to reduce TB, cases and deaths, by 80% and 90% respectively in 2030^[3], I’m guessing that some of the work should be substantially more cost-effective than the average.

I’ve not dug into the plan at all I only skimmed the headline numbers, but an interesting read nonetheless!

GiveWell has done some work on TB, but I’m not sure what their overall views are on the area. They recently pulled out of an RCT for a screening program (for unknown reasons?). As far as I can gather there was quite a lot of activity around 2009-2010, with Holden going so far as to personally give to Stop Tuberculosis Partnership. Seems like it was a top rated charity at the time.

If anyone has a good feel for what GiveWell thinks about the area I’d be very interested to hear about it! Or some pointers to where I can learn more.
1. ^
  Page 14, under “Resource needs”, The Global Plan to End TB 2023-2030 [PDF]
2. ^
  Page 14, under “The cost of inaction”, The Global Plan to End TB 2023-2030 [PDF]
3. ^
  Page 15, under “Projected impact”, The Global Plan to End TB 2023-2030 [PDF]

Håkon Harnes 30 Jun 2023 9:18 UTC
9 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Denis ’s comment on: Four claims about the role of effective giving in the EA community
I’ve been involved with Gi Effektivt for many years, which is the Norwegian version of what you are suggesting here. There are many effective giving orgs all over Europe, and more to come, which focus on this area exactly. In NL Doneer Effectief is probably the dutch version you are referring to?

We’ve been surprised to see how much people care about tax deductions, especially outside the core EA movement. I think I disagree that tax deduction are a large part of what makes a donation effective, as our main claim to effectiveness lies in the interventions themselves, which can be many orders of magnitude better than typical charities. In Norway tax deductions give you ~23% more donation capacity up to 2 500 euros. That is, you get to deduct your donations up to a ceiling of 2 500 euros (it’s slightly more complicated, but it’s the gist of it).

Surprisingly we see even donors donating substantially above this ceiling amount care a lot about getting their deductions. So yes, there is some evidence that this is important for donors that fit the typical EA-mindset, at least in Norway :)

Håkon Harnes 8 Apr 2023 18:23 UTC
14 points
2 ∶ 1
on: New survey: 46% of Americans are concerned about extinction from AI; 69% support a six-month pause in AI development
There is often quite a large gap between what these kinds of surveys seem to imply and actual voter behaviour. We see this in climate change all the time. Consider the recent survey that reported that over half of young people think humanity is doomed (with regards to climate change) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58549373.

Yet we are not seeing a huge surge in support for european green parties.

I’m not sure what’s going on with these surveys, but it’s an interesting comparison.

Håkon Harnes 26 Mar 2023 22:15 UTC
8 points
0 ∶ 1
on: Reflecting on the Last Year — Lessons for EA (opening keynote at EAG)
To echo the general sentiment, I also want to express my gratitude and appreciation for this talk. I found it warm, inclusive and positive. Thanks!

Håkon Harnes 18 Nov 2022 17:35 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Pablo’s comment on: Eirik Mofoss named “Young leader of the year” in Norway
The examples you provided are fine alternatives :+1:

Håkon Harnes 18 Nov 2022 10:41 UTC
13 points
4 ∶ 1
in reply to: Pablo’s comment on: Eirik Mofoss named “Young leader of the year” in Norway
Interesting, I have the exact opposite intuition! I think calling Eirik a co-founder of EA in Norway is simply a descriptive factually correct statement. He was one of two people that started the first EA group in Norway that subsequently grew into the community it is today.

On the other hand, I don’t like to think that the movement has any leaders. It’s a community of widely varying views and approaches, united by common values. Actually, EA Norway, which is the closest you’ll find to a formal organisation for EA in Norway, is a democratic membership organisation where the members stake out the priorities and goals of the org every year. The board is elected by the members with a given mandate, and the board are ultimately accountable to the members. I believe there were roughly 400 members last time I checked.

This might be unusual by international EA standards, I’ve never really reflected on it! It is however normal in scandinavian countries, many organisations and all political parties are run in a similar manner.

Håkon Harnes 16 Nov 2022 10:47 UTC
24 points
9 ∶ 2
on: [Linkpost] Sam Harris on “The Fall of Sam Bankman-Fried”
I also generally found this podcast encouraging and Sam is an eloquent speaker.

I did however find his characterisation of conventional philanthropic organisations rather strange. He highlights perverse incentives in that organisations would not really want to solve the issue they are ostensibly working on, as it would put them out of business. Although perhaps true in a strict theoretical sense, and there may be some unconscious / systemic drivers of this type of behaviour as well, it seems a very odd thing to focus on. This isn’t even what differentiates EA from other philanthropy as far as I can gather (why would this not also apply to EA aligned orgs?).

Also, I’ve noticed over the years that Sam has a tendency to label critique and objections as “confusion”. It’s become somewhat of a trigger word for me. His opponents are always “confused” and misunderstanding him (which does happen a fair bit in fairness), whereas he himself is never confused about the pushback he receives. I find it does happen that he is in fact the one misunderstanding his opponent.

Just wanted to put that out there, perhaps you’ll notice the same thing when listening to Sam in the future :)