I imagine there could be a useful office in a city with ~20 people using it regularly and ~100 people interested enough in EA to come to some events, and I wouldnât think of that city as an âEA hubâ.
I also think eg. a London office has much more value than an eg. an Oxford or Cambridge office (although I understand all three to be hubs), even though Oxford and Cambridge have a higher EA-density.
located in an existing hub so that program participants have plenty of people outside the program to interact with
I donât understand this consideration. It seems to me that people located in a place with a more robust existing community are the people that would counterfactually benefit the least from a place to interact with other EAs, because they have plenty of opportunities to do so already.
Iâm assuming by âhubâ you mean âEA hubâ, but if by âhubâ you mean âa place with high population density/âotherwise a lot of people to talk toâ, then this makes sense.
(Full disclosure: I was a grantee of CEEALAR last year; but Iâm thinking about this in the context of non-residential office/âco-working spaces like Meridian Office).
Can you say more precisely what it means for a fund to be recommended? For instance, how should a donor compare giving to one of the ârecommended fundsâ to giving to a specific charity or project directly? (and by extension one of GWWCâs new funds over a specific charity)
How did you choose the set of evaluators to evaluateâfor instance, why evaluate LTFF and LLF over FPâs GCR fund? Were there other evaluators considered for the process but not evaluated?
Itâs kind of jarring to read that someone has been banned for âviolating a normââthat word to me implies that theyâre informal agreements between the community. Why not call them ârulesâ?
tabforacauseâa browser extension which shows you ads and directs ad revenue to charityâhas launched a way to set GiveDirectly as the charity you want to direct ad revenue to.
It doesnât raise a lot of money per tab opened, obviously, but Iâm not using my newtab page for anything else and find the advertising unobtrusiveâits in the corner, not taking up the whole screenâif. youâre like me in these respects it could be something to add.
Fixed now, thanks for flagging!
How many evaluators typically rate each grant application?
Is there a place to donate to the operations /â running of LTFF or the funds in general?
Iâd think the article youâre referencing (link) basically argues against considering âdaodeâ to mean âmoralityâ and vice-versa.
The abstract: âIn contemporary Western moral philosophy literature that discusses the Chinese ethical tradition, it is a commonplace practice to use the Chinese term daode é垡 as a technical translation of the English term moral. The present study provides some empirical evidence showing a discrepancy between the terms moral and daode.â
Hm, I think Hamishâs estimate of the cost included a bunch of tinkering with the settings; I can see it going either way. Another thing I think is more important is flexibility to make code changes and iteratively improveâhow do you feel notion would do with that? Iâm curious to see what you managed to get on Notion if youâre willing to talk through it with us.
(BTW, are you the Patrick Liu who participated in the Stampy hackathon this past weekend?)
I see you already volunteer on aisafety.info! From working on that project these are some areas I think could benefit from being made more accessible (on our platform or otherwiseâweâre working on these but definitely could use the help + I would be really happy to see them worked on anywhere)
The research agendas and strategies of various alignment orgs and independent researchers
AI policy: The proposals that have been made and the content of active and forthcoming policy documents
Forecasting: The predictions that have been made and the methods by which weâve come to them
Current models: What the most powerful models are doing and how
Iâll come back and add more if/âwhen I think of more
I realize these are categories instead of specific documents but thereâs just so much to be worked on! These are purely my views, and I havenât run this past anyone else in the team, who I suspect have more thoughts. For anyone stumbling across this whoâd like to help with the project but who isnât familiar with it, we have a prioritized list of content we would like to cover on the site but donât have yet.
Thanks for pointing this out! Iâve fixed it in this post and weâll look into checking it automatically
Yes, thereâs one this weekend. Thanks for flagging the link, Iâve fixed it now.
Oh I see, thanks! - I didnât realise this because the statement that appears after indicating youâve been personally referred is: âSince you were referred to this position, the rest of the application is optionalâ which makes it sound like it wouldnât be optional if you werenât referred.
I just looked at the application for the role of content specialist for CEA, which seems to involve a lot of working on this forum.
I noticed that if one indicates they have been personally referred by someone âinvolved in effective altruismâ, one is given the option to skip âthe rest of the applicationâ - which seems like the majority of the substantive information one is asked to give.
This seems overtly nepotistic, and I canât think of a good reason for itâcan anyone give one?
Should be fixed now, thanks for highlighting.
Thereâs EA VRâtheyâre listed as inactive but I think thereâs some activity in their discord. Look forward to seeing you around and feel free to ping anyone with âEAGather Stewardâ in their name for a tour :)
Iâm not sure about this particular case, but I donât think the value of the property increasing over time is a generally good argument for why investments need not be publicly discussed. A lot of potential altruistic spending has benefits that accrue over time, where the benefits of money spent earlier outweighs the benefits of money spent laterâas has been discussed extensively when comparing giving now vs. giving later.
The whole premise of EA is that resources should be spent in effective ways, and potential altruistic benefits is no excuse for an ineffective spending of money.
It seems like setting ourselves up for selection bias if we take listen only to people with experience with âhow bad journalism getsâ. We also want to get advice from people with good experiences with journalism, because they might be doing things that make them more likely to get good experiences, and presumably know about how to continue to go about having good experiences, having gotten them.
There may be some parts of EA where the media donât start out nicely inclined to the area at hand, but I think on many topics we might care to engage with the media on, they likely would start out neutral or positive on anything.
We might take the points here with more weight if they are from someone with extensive experience, but a lack of experience doesnât invalidate the reasoning here.
I think having a separate section for community posts has greatly improved my experience of the forum. However I think there are still quite a lot of posts that stay on the front page for a long time for similar reasons to why community posts didâbecause they â[interest] everyone at least a little bitâ and/âor are âaccessible to everyone, or on topics where everyone has an opinionâ.
I want to see posts that do things like present the results of significant work get more attention, and to a lesser extent posts that are topicalâi.e. announcements about recent news, events, and achievements also get more attention. I think these posts suffer from not having either of the above properties.
Could have filters/âtags that promote these posts?