NVC says: drop the adjectives and focus on indisputable facts, such as how you feel about the situation.
This seems like describing a totally different potential post. If titotal had written “why the AI 2027 model makes me sad” my reaction would have been ‘why should I care about your emotional reaction?’ - the important thing is whether the model is good.
A healthy 30 year old, uninvolved in crime or drugs, has less than a 0.1% chance of death. Do you think it is irrational for them to buy some cheap life insurance to protect their family in the small fraction of worlds where they do die?
China has a no nuclear first use policy. Even the U.S. doesn’t have that.
I’m not sure how much moral credit you get for this. China’s nuclear arsenal is much smaller than America’s—they are much closer to parity on conventional weapons. Escalation to nuclear weapons is not advantageous for them.
However, it is not the highest in the rich world. Canada, Australia and Germany had higher migration per capita in 2022; both Canada and Australia also did in 2023. Indeed, Canada has expanded immigration much more dramatically than the UK. In 2023, Canada’s population grew by 3.2%, 98% of which was from immigration; this is >2x the UK rate.
Thus: yes, the UK has had high immigration in recent years. It is, however, not accurate to say that the UK has had open borders during this period.
Whether or not a country has open borders is determined by how controlled immigration is, not by whether or not any other country had more immigration. When people say the UK has open borders, they are typically meaning something like:
It is easy to enter the UK, for example on a tourist visa, by sailing across the channel, or by lying and claiming to be a refugee.
The UK has little ability to prevent undesirable immigrants from entering the country.
Once you get into the UK, even illegitimately, you are extremely unlikely to be deported.
The fact that some other country also had a lot of immigration does nothing to refute this.
Are you aware of any major conferences that do not use name badges?
If anything I think names are more important at EAG than other conferences, because you have to locate your 1-1 partners manually each time.
I think it makes a big difference whether this is private information you came across in the course of your employment, or public information that you learned of through the news, trade press etc. If the former you should consider informing your manager, HR or compliance department, or regulator, depending on the nature of the problem (you should have received training explaining who the appropriate people to bring different types of issues to are). If it is public events you can discuss them here, and my strong intuition is they do not provide strong reasons for you to resign if you otherwise wouldn’t.
There are a lot of possible causes in the world. It’s generally more productive to present a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation to suggest why you think a cause might plausibly be one of the most cost-effective ways of improving the world, rather than jumping straight to casting aspersions on others.
Always happy to see someone change their mind on the forum!
I agree it would be great for there to be a competitor. My only doubt would be whether the market is large enough to support a second group. My guess is they would probably have to be significantly better than ACE along multiple axis.
Seems plausible to me that people who are interested in the topic of mental health have worse mental health than the average person.
Thanks for sharing. I think I actually disagree—if a donor finds this off-putting, this is a good thing, because it is the result of them getting more accurate information about ACE. It is hard for non-experts to evaluate experts on the subject of expertise because of the information asymmetry. It is often easier to evaluate them on other topics that you know more about, and then make inferences based on their revealed epistemics.
This seems especially appropriate here because we know that their woke views do affect their charity reviews.
The … StopAI people are often treated as fringe in the EA community
Not sure how relevant this is given I think she disapproves of them. (I agree they are so fringe as to be basically outside it).
Yes, I understand the arguments against it applying here. My question is whether the threshold is being set at a sufficiently high level that it basically never applies to anyone. Hence why I was looking for examples which would qualify.
What do you think would constitute being a “sellout and traitor”?
What about cutting out eggs and adding some other source of protein, like beef?
Cause neutrality is about being open to donating to whichever cause seems like the most cost-effective after evaluating the evidence. It doesn’t mean giving equal time to all possible causes regardless of the cost-effectiveness.
It is not forbidden nor even discouraged as far as I am aware.
Thanks for comissioning this work and sharing it.
I found your comments about the methodology a bit confusing. Are these estimates for what the impact would have been, if PEPFAR hadn’t been largely restored, or what it actually will be?
We first assigned these forecasts during a period in which it appeared that foreign aid might be reduced to effectively zero. After substantial outcry, some funding has been reinstated. Charles Kenny and Justin Sandefur,1 of the Center for Global Development, have compiled estimates of total USAID cuts by sector and by country. Some areas, such as infrastructure and civil society, appear likely to be hollowed out entirely. Others, like maternal health and agriculture, may continue at only a tenth of their previous funding. The most critical programming, at least in terms of immediate mortality impacts, such as PEPFAR, malaria, and nutrition assistance, appear likely to persist, albeit in a heavily reduced form — around 70% of its previous funding for HIV/AIDS, 50% for TB, and 40% for nutrition.
...
We estimate that the combined impact of the projected cuts to these five programs will result in between 483,000 and 1.14 million excess deaths over one year.
Yes, I have an intuition that development is good, just like I have an intuition that ice cream is good. That doesn’t mean that the price of the ice-cream should be ignored and assumed to be zero when deciding when to buy it, and nor should the costs of development be ignored and assumed to be zero.
It is the commerce clause interpretation that gives the federal government the right to regulate in this fashion. (Though I would point to Wickard v. Filburn as being the key case, rather than Gonzales v. Raich). The federal government doesn’t have the right to do whatever it likes, it has certain enumerated constitutional powers—Wickard v Filburn and a couple of similar cases are where they decided to interpret those enumerated powers very broadly and give themselves the almost unlimited power they have today.
I agree the discussion of Guantanamo is a distraction.
Given that the right is current dominant in US foreign policy, and will probably remain so for the next 4-8 years, something being associated with the right should probably increase your estimate of its tractability.
(I think promoting isolationism is bad for other reasons).