Hm, how could this interact with hypothetical clawbacks?
E.g.
your org has $0
your org receives $100 from FTXF, now your org has $100
your org spends $50 of that money, and then decides to stop
your org receive $10 from Nonlinear, now your org has $60
the clawback effort comes to your org and says “hey we need $100”. org say “I don’t have $100, I only have $50″
Does the clawback effort then say “No actually you have $60, we’re taking all $60” because of money fungibility?
I’ve known many EAs. Many have been vegan and many have not (I’m not). I’ve never seen anyone “treat [someone] as non-serious (or even evil)” based on their diet.
I’ve had this happen fwiw.
What edits have you (or anyone you know) made that seem to have been valuable?
I wonder what a reasonable cost-effectiveness/ROI estimate is for funding EAs trying to make billion-dollar startups.
Thank you for writing about what pushed me away from the EA community. The force to make all else instrumental. Best of luck
FYI when I read the title and skimmed the hover-preview (~first paragraph) of this essay, I didn’t at all realize you meant psychological minimum
I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned temperature. E.g. buying a chilipad brought down my night-time insomnia by ~80%. (And I live in the northeast, too!)
Recently I’ve moved my bed directly next to my air conditioner, which has been great
Have you investigated the effect of night-time darkness?
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/24/12019
Also of blocking blue/green light? Though there’s only a handful of studies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7229994/ - found a 58% increase in night-time melatonin (blocking just blue, though separately it might do well to block green too)
I think I have some more notes lying around somewhere if you need them
Would love if you could do this for the EA Intro Fellowship syllabus (e.g. here’s one syllabus, but note that the syllabus is continuously updating between semesters and different universities use different syllabi)
The title of this made me think “ways to buy time [with money in your personal life]” rather than “ways to buy time [in AI safety]”
Should no overlap with FTX’s project ideas competition be assumed? (Links: Announcement, Awards)
Another structure I’ve been considering is converting the fellowship into a class. (At CMU student-taught classes are part of the culture and pretty common.) But I’m less excited about this than the idea I outlined in my other comment.
Hm… of 7.4% of students who are familiar with EA, only 17.6% of those students (1.3%/7.3%) are pro-EA and 82% are not. What fraction did we expect here?
Can confirm that other groups/subcultures have begun to see EA as a deceitful cult because of stuff like this
I think it’s pretty weird that Melatonin is #1 in your list. I think it’s weird to suggest exogenous supplementation of something like that without an explanation of why melatonin is low to begin with. The efficient market hypothesis, but applied to your own biochemistry. Chesterton’s fence, etc.
The body isn’t a machine- as if you can just give it the right amounts of the right compounds and it will perform optimally.
Yeah, time constraints as expected. I think I found the title of this post a bit strong then.
Also, I would be surprised if light exposure + Vitamin D approximates daytime sunlight at more than 50% effect.
What about the effects of daytime sunlight on sleep? (I would be hesitant about confounding sunlight exposure with vitamin D supplementation, I think it’s unlikely that they’re equivalent.)
Animals do this intuitively:
Pigeons were presented with two buttons in a Skinner box, each of which led to varying rates of food reward. The pigeons tended to peck the button that yielded the greater food reward more often than the other button, and the ratio of their rates to the two buttons matched the ratio of their rates of reward on the two buttons.
I think #3 is the most important question and the most likely way that shelters fail
There’s a weird detail I see in this post that seems to overemphasize the campaign’s success:
and
However, Carrick only received half as many votes as the winning candidate (results). Maybe this wasn’t immediately clear as the data was tentative, but I find it hard to update much on this data.