Could you expand a bit on how this would look like? How are they being “shunted”, what kind of roles are low-level roles? (E.g. your claim could be that the average male EA CS-student is much less likely to hear “You should change from AI safety to community-building” than female EA CS-students.)
harfe
Karma: 825
That is, many (most?) people need a break-in point to move from something like “basically convinced that EA is good, interested in the ideas and consuming content, maybe donating 10%” to anything more ambitious.
I am under the impression that EAGx can be such a break-in point, and has lower admission standards than EAG. In particular, there is EAGxVirtual (Applications are open!).
Has the rejected person you are thinking of applied to any EAGx conference?
I think sounding like a salesman is ok here.
Maybe something like “Which orgs would benefit from my unpaid labor?” or “Offer: I can work on your project for free for some months (Tech/Operation/Management)”.
Great to see that you are seriously thinking about promoting etg!
If I had refreshed the frontpage and seen your post on etg I would not have posted my comment, I was just a bit surprised to see the “obvious” strategy of “lets promote etg” not explicitly mentioned.
A strategy for scaling effective giving that is not mentioned here is earning to give.
Encouraging and helping people who are already bought into the idea of donating effectively to earn more could generate a lot of money and value. I think this strategy should be considered besides encouraging high-earners to donate effectively (I am not making a claim here about which is better).
A concrete step could be to talk to people from 80k about advertising earning to give again.
I hope we will endorse this, should it come to pass
Endorse what exactly? It is unclear to me what you mean there exactly.
This feels like misleading advertising to me, particularly “Election interference” and “Loss of social connection”. Unless bluedot is doing some very different curriculum now and have a very different understanding of what alignment is. These bait-and-switch tactics might not be a good way to create a “big tent”.
This seems false.
Consider three charities A,B,C and three voters X,Y,Z, who can donate $1 each. The matching funds are $3. Voter Z likes charity C and thinks A and B are useless, and gives everything to C. Voter Y likes charity B and thinks A and C are useless, and gives everything to B. Voter X likes charities A and B equally and thinks C is useless.
Then voter X can get more utility by giving everything to charity B, rather than splitting equally between A and B: If voter X gives everything to charity B, the proportions for charities A,B,C are If voter X splits between A and B, the proportions are The latter gives less utility according to voter X.
Here is the article I personally find it unsatisfying to read, as it does not adequately represent or address the xrisk concerns.
I do remember this post having around 20 net upvotes about a day ago.
But some changes over time can also just be noise (if some people have strong-votes). Also, timezone correlations could also be an explanation (it would not surprise me if the US is more free-speech than Europe). Or there could be changes in the way the article gets found by different people. Or people change their vote after they changed their mind over the article. Or the article gets posted in a discord channel, without any intentions or instructions of brigading. Of course its still possible that the vote changes have some sketchy origin, and I am not against the forum moderators investigating these patterns.
This post is on a controversial topic, so lots of votes in both directions are to be expected.
The EA Forum should ban any discussion of race science, “human biodiversity”, or racial differences in IQ
Can you link to concrete examples of things on the EA Forum that would be deleted under the proposed new EA Forum rules?
I tried searching for “human biodiversity” but few of these posts seem like the kind of post where I would guess that you want them deleted.
Things that are found were mostly about the Manifest or Bostrom controversy. I am guessing you do not want to delete these. Or this post. In the wake of the Bostrom controversy there was also this heavily downvoted post that complained about “wokism”. I am guessing this is the type of post that you want to see deleted. There is also this upvoted comment that argues against “human biodiversity”, which, if I interpret your proposed rule change correctly, should also be deleted. (A rule that says “you are allowed to argue against HBD, but not for it” would be naive IMO, and I do not get the impression that you would endorse such a rule).
Overall, I do not remember seeing people discussing “human biodiversity” on the object level. It indeed seems off-topic for EA. And explicitly searching for it does not bring up a lot, and only in relation to EA controversies.
The section “International Game Theory” does not seem to me like an argument against AI as an existential risk.
If the USA and China decide to have a non-cooperative AI race, my sense is that this would increase existential risk rather than reduce it.
There is already a central repository of EA domains: https://ea.domains/. You could just add it there and wait to be contacted.
Just speculating here, but if you want to capture most of the energy of a star (e.g. by a Dyson swarm), this will be visible. And if you can only use a fraction of the energy available, this might reduce your expansion speeds.
If you take a bunch of random samples of a normal distribution, and only look at subsamples with median 2 sds out, in approximately ~0 subsamples will you find it equally likely to see + 0 sds and +4 sds.
Wait, are you claiming +0 SD is significantly more likely than +4 SD in a subsample with median +2 SD, or are you claiming that +4 SD is more likely than +0 SD? And what makes you think so?
This looks like a good argument for proportional representation. This might be worth bringing up when the next discussion of FPTP vs approval vs ranked choice takes place.
What is missing (imo) is what EAs can do about it. Just having the “correct” opinion is not enough, and most countries are probably reluctant to change their constitutions.
FYI: Emile Torres is using they/them pronouns. I think you should edit your comment to use their preferred pronouns.
In fact, I’d go further and suggest that it would be great if they were to set up their own forum.
Manifold already has a highly active discord, where they can discuss all the manifold-specific issues. This did not prevent the EA Forum from discussing the topic, and I doubt it would be much different if Manifold had a proper forum instead of a discord.
This is annoying because many of these discussions rate high on controversy but low on importance for EA.
It might seem low on importance for EA to you, but I suspect some people who are upset about Manifest inviting right-wing people do not consider it low-importance.
I strongly disagree. I think human extinction would be bad.
Not every utility function is equally desirable. For example, an ASI that maximizes the number of paperclips in the universe would be a bad outcome.
Thus, unless one adopts anthropocentric values, the utilitarian philosophy common in this forum (whether you approve of additivity or not) implies that it would be desirable for humans to develop ASI to exterminate humans as quickly and with as high a probability as possible, as opposed to the exact opposite goal that many people pursue.
Most people here do adopt anthropocentric values, in that they think human flourishing would be more desirable than a vast amount of paperclips.
As far as I remember, the political discussions have been quite civilized on the EA Forum. But I think this is because of the policies and culture the EA Forum has. If political discussions were a lot more frequent, the culture and discussion styles could get worse. For example, it might attract EA-adjacent people or even outsiders to fight their political battles on the EA Forum. Maybe this can be solved by hiring additional moderators though.
Also, politics can get a lot of attention that would be better spend elsewhere. For example this post about Trump generated 60 comments, and I am not sure if it was worth it.