the child is adding an expected value of $27,275 per year in social surplus.
It would take $133,333 per year to raise a child to adulthood for it to not be worthwhile
I think the comparison of “social surplus” to effective donations is mistaken here. A social surplus of $27,275 (in the US) does not save 5 lives, but an effective donation of that size might.
There used to be such a system: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/YhPWq784eRDr5999P/announcing-the-ea-donation-swap-system It got shut down 7 months ago (see the comments on that post).
Some (or all?) Lightspeed grants are part of SFF: https://survivalandflourishing.fund/sff-2023-h2-recommendations
One outstanding question is at what point AI capabilities are too close to loss of control. We propose to delegate this question to the AI Safety Institutes set up in the U.K., U.S., China, and other countries.
I consider it clickbait if you write “There Is a Solution”, but then say that there are these AI safety institutes that will figure out the crucial details of the solution some time in the future.
edit: the issue raised in this comment has been fixed
In my opinion you have not really argued why it is neglected. As a starting point, they seem to spend roughly $35 million per year: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/824506840. $14 million of those are for salaries, so I would be surprised if new features are strongly bottlenecked by money and talent.
I am just guessing on these issues, but my suspicion as for why some features such as “live location sharing” and “display past encrypted messages from the group chat you were not a member of but only just now joined” are not (yet) implemented because they do not fit well into Signal’s approach to security/privacy.
Could you provide examples of political discussions on the EA Forum that appear to have negatively impacted the forum’s environment or impaired its ability to achieve its objectives?
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.
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.)
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.
Julia Wise, who works at CEA, studied at Bryn Mawr College.
(Another comment of yours makes me think by “top 10 attendee” you mean “has attended a top 10 university”.)