PopVax is an Indian biotechnology company. Biotech is a type of pharma company.
Larks
Karma: 16,041
This seems quite burdensome. In order to accept a $10k donation from a ‘high-risk’ PopVax employee (listed on 80k’s job board!) you’d have to:
Involve a wide range of senior people in your org:
A wide range of functions and units across CC are part of the process to decide on Donations and Partnerships. The process will typically include input from CC’s:
Development Team
Relevant program or project team
Legal Team
CEO
Development Council
Members of the Board of Directors, where relevant expertise is needed
Pay for a wealth screening database:
current and prospective Donors that meet the criteria for screening described above will be screened using a wealth screening database
Write a written report that is reviewed by many senior people:
the Development Team will provide a written report to the CEO, the Legal Team, any relevant program / project teams, the Development Council and board members selected by it and the Development Team for review and approval during the Qualification Stage of the fundraising pipeline.
be very diligent:
Decisions are taken after thorough examination of such Donation [emphasis added]
Review each year:
CC reviews Donors and their fundamentals every year at the renewal or annual anniversary of a multi-year relationship
Regularly stalk them on social media:
regularly monitors the media for developments linked to Donors. The monitoring is carried out by the Development Team with support from staff and relevant project teams as reasonably requested.
Communicate frequently with donors with feedback about their business practices:
CC aims to maintain a frequent, transparent and constructive engagement with Donors. This enables the CC to be a critical friend where appropriate.
… and a $10k donation from a Palantir employee would simply be totally prohibited.
Overall it seems plausible to me that actually following this for a $10k donation would eat up most of the donation in due diligence overhead. My guess is that CC does not actually follow the letter of this policy in practice.
This sounds like the sort of thing you should have asked CEA about before posting.
I don’t know whether such people are going around dming everyone like this.
Presumably not, as most people are not going around creating crime prediction markets that dramatically raise the salience of an implicit accusation. From their point of view I can see their response as being extremely restrained—you are making probabilistic public accusations that will predictably make them look bad, no matter how low the market price, and they’re not responding publicly at all.
I’d like to better understand your criteria for relevance.
There was some mental process that lead you to think this was good content to share on the EA forum. What this was was (at least to me, and I suspect to other readers) very opaque—so I suggest you explicitly mention it.
A good example is this post. It also introduces a topic with no explicit action items and doesn’t provide ‘direct factual support for current EA initiatives’. But it is pretty clear why it might be relevant to EA work, and the author explicitly included a section gesturing at the reasons to make it clear.
Are you suggesting that EA relevance requires either explicit action items or direct factual support for current EA initiatives?
No I am not.
I agree that not everything needs to supply random marginal facts about malaria. But at the same time I think concrete examples are useful to keep things grounded, and I think it’s reasonable to adopt a policy of ‘not relevant to EA until at least some evidence to the contrary is provided’. Apparently the OP does have some relevance in mind:
This matters because a lot of EA work involves studying revealed preferences in contexts with strong power dynamics (development economics, animal welfare, etc). If we miss these dynamics, we risk optimizing for the same coercive equilibria we’re trying to fix.
I feel like it would have been good to spend like half the post on this! Maybe I am just being dumb but it is genuinely unclear to me what preference falsification the OP is worried about with animal welfare. Without this the post seems to be written as a long response to a question about sex that as far as I can tell no-one on the forum asked.
Conversations people have with un-RLHF’d models.
Yup, I understand the general concept of preference falsification. My question is about the specific application. I think it would be helpful if you had a concrete example of where this would be relevant for e.g. malaria bednets or factory farming?
Thanks for sharing this. Perhaps you could explain the relevance to effective altruism a bit more explicitly?
That mindspace is large and AIs are really weird.
That it is possible to make smarter than human AIs and that this is The Issue.
That sufficiently intelligent AIs will not ‘automatically’ be moral (e.g. the behaviour of un-RLHF’d models).
That people will choose to let the AI out of the box.
since criticisms of EA also come with the ‘Community’ tag attached
This seems not straightforwardly true to me—or at least it shouldn’t be? Criticisms of the EA community should be community-tagged, but criticisms of EA ideas should not be.
This is a guy who got back surgery that was covered by his health insurance and then murdered the CEO of a different health insurance company. While EAs are always keen to self-flagellate over any possible bad thing that might have some tangential connection, I really think this one can be categorized under ‘crazy’ and ‘psychedelics’. To the extent he was motivated by ideology it doesn’t seem to be EA—the slogan he carved onto the bullet casings was a general anti-capitalist anti-insurance one.
Surely smokers are on average richer than malaria victims? No-one in the west is getting Malaria, but many do smoke, and smokers need at least enough money to buy cigarettes. And smokers chose to smoke; people aren’t choosing to get malaria.
unlike many problems the EA community grapples with, we already know how to help them
It’s strange you make this post about comparing to malaria. Surely we actually have a better sense of how to fight malaria (e.g. bednets, medicine) than we do smoking (where even with good support quitting can be difficult)?
Even considering that you could presumably choose not to apply? (I guess you think it is bad in a systematically surprising way).
Presumably you would want to give them negative rights (contracts, own property, not being murdered etc.) only, and not positive rights (healthcare, housing, cash). Which makes sense to me as the latter are much more philosophically dubious anyway.
So technically, they received some aid—I’ll edit accordingly, thanks for the flag—but considerably less than most refugees.
There is a huge difference between ’they were at some times not approved for this specific type of aid” and “work or starve”. There is no way that the US in the 1980s would tolerate mass starvation like this—even if the federal government hadn’t stepped in, the individual states, churches, charities, families etc. would not have allowed that to occur.
To quote Billy and Packard 2020...
If you read the prior sentence in that article, you will see they are basically assuming the negative selection to be true, and don’t engage with my argument that positive selection effects also existed at all:
Accounting for migrant selection lies outside the scope of our project and the available data.
I don’t think the fact that some were eventually deported shows very much. I’m not denying that some of them were criminals—I’m just claiming that there are also significant positive selection effects. Since you’re not saying that they were all eventually deported, and I’m not saying that every single migrant was a great person, I don’t think the mere fact that some were deported is very strong evidence either way.
That’s their… headline result?
No, it is not. You discussed whether refugees were “particularly likely to commit crimes”. This is a simple statistic—you take crimes committed and divide by population. It is the statistic shown in the chart I included. As far as I am aware, basically every source agrees that this wave of refugees commit crimes at well above the rates of natives.
In contrast, my understanding is the Huang and Kvasnicka paper you quoted do a series of regressions to try to establish whether the scale of immigration changed the amount of crimes that refugees committed. This is a different question. It could (hypothetically) be the case that refugees were committing crimes at a very high rate, and then this fell in 2015 but was still higher than the native rate—if this was the case then this paper would show the opposite result to what we are discussing.
I am also very skeptical of the paper because the garden of branching paths issue seems so large—they declined to publish simple statistics and opted for much more complicated regressions instead which matched the results they clearly ideologically favoured—but this is beside the point because, even if their paper had no issues, it simply answers a different question.
It’s possible I’ve misunderstood this issue. If that’s the case I’d love to see the explanation for the difference between this paper’s complex methodology and the simple approaches which overwhelmingly suggest the opposite.
Well you did suggest people could “emulate” and “copy-paste”
No, any employee who is ‘involved’ in arms, including totally unobjectionable sales to the US Government, would be involved. The language is quite clear that, while it includes illegal weapons, there is nothing to suggest it is limited to them. As far as I can see even accountants would be ‘involved’ - you can’t make weapons without accounting!