Lizka

• LizkaOct 31, 2023, 7:52 PM

  3 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: harfe’s comment on: Lizka’s Shortform

  We’re planning on having 3 winners, and we’ll allocate the funding proportionally across those three winners. So e.g. if we do approval voting, and candidate A gets 5 votes, B gets 2, C gets 20, and D gets 25, and we’re distributing $100, then A (5 votes), C (20 votes), and D win (25 votes) and we’d send $10 to A, $40 to C, and $50 to D. I think this would straightforwardly work with quadratic voting (each person just has multiple vote-points). I haven’t thought enough about how “proportional” allocation would work with ranked-choice votes.

  And yep, donating more to that fund won’t get you additional votes.

• LizkaOct 31, 2023, 1:07 PM

  33 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Lizka’s Shortform

  Edit: I’ve now shared: Donation Election: how voting will work. Really grateful for the discussion on this thread!

  ---

  We’re planning on running a Donation Election for Giving Season.

  What do you think the final voting mechanism should be, and why? E.g. approval voting, ranked-choice voting, quadratic voting, etc.

  Considerations might include: how well this will allocate funds based on real preferences, how understandable it is to people who are participating in the Donation Election or following it, etc.

  I realize that I might be opening a can of worms, but I’m looking forward to reading any comments! I might not have time to respond.

  ---

  Some context (see also the post):

  Users will be able to “pre-vote” (to signal that they’re likely to vote for some candidates, and possibly to follow posts about some candidates), for as many candidates as they want. The pre-votes are anonymous (as are final votes), but the total numbers will be shown to everyone. There will be a separate process for final voting, which will determine the three winners in the election. The three winners will receive the winnings from the Donation Election Fund, split proportionally based on the votes.

  Only users who had an account as of October 22, 2023, will be able to vote, unfortunately. We’ve had to add this restriction to avoid election manipulation (we’ll also be monitoring in other ways). I realize that this limits genuine new users’ ability to vote, but hopefully the fact that newer users can participate in other ways (like by encouraging others to vote for some candidates, or by donating to candidates/​the Donation Election Fund) helps a bit.

  A quick preview of the pre-votes, in case you’re interested:

  

  What links here?

  • Par­ti­ci­pate in the Dona­tion Elec­tion and the first weekly theme (start­ing 7 Novem­ber) by Lizka (Nov 2, 2023, 5:02 PM; 85 points)
  • Dona­tion Elec­tion: how vot­ing will work by Lizka (Nov 14, 2023, 2:34 PM; 59 points)
  • harfe's comment on Dona­tion Elec­tion: how vot­ing will work by Lizka (Nov 14, 2023, 3:42 PM; 5 points)
  • Lizka's comment on Win­ners in the Fo­rum’s Dona­tion Elec­tion (2023) by Lizka (Dec 26, 2023, 11:17 PM; 3 points)

• LizkaOct 31, 2023, 12:16 PM

  21 points

  7 ∶ 3

  on: Let’s cel­e­brate some wins

  I think this is a win:

  UPDATE 2023/​09/​13:

  Including only money that has already landed in our bank account and extremely credible donor promises of funding, LTFF has raised ~1.1M and EAIF has raised ~500K. After Open Phil matching, this means LTFF now has ~3.3M additional funding and EAIF has ~1.5m in additional funding.
  
  ...

  From my (Linch)’s perspective, this means both LTFF nor EAIF are no longer very funding constrained for the time period we wanted to raise money for (the next ~6 months), however both funds are still funding constrained and can productively make good grants with additional funding.

  ...

• LizkaOct 31, 2023, 12:13 PM

  40 points

  5 ∶ 0

  on: Let’s cel­e­brate some wins

  Rates of HIV seem to be falling (related, on PEPFAR):

  (It seems there are also signs that dementia rates are falling.)

• LizkaOct 25, 2023, 7:05 PM

  4 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: An­nounc­ing Epoch’s newly ex­panded Pa­ram­e­ters, Com­pute and Data Trends in Ma­chine Learn­ing database

  I haven’t explored the new database in depth, but the site looks really cool! I really love the visualizations/​interactive charts. Thanks for making and sharing this.

  Minor/​quick suggestion: have you considered adding a screenshot (or two) to this post?

• LizkaOct 24, 2023, 8:05 PM

  12 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Lizka’s comment on: EA Fo­rum: plans for Giv­ing Sea­son 2023

  I’ve also created two Manifold Markets to see if we can get some info on how the match would affect this event:

  1.

  2.

• LizkaOct 24, 2023, 7:50 PM

  15 points

  20 ∶ 15

  on: EA Fo­rum: plans for Giv­ing Sea­son 2023

  Quick poll: Agree-vote on this comment if you would donate some amount to the Donation Election Fund. Disagree-vote if you wouldn’t.

  I’m most interested in the number of people who would donate (as opposed to the fraction or number of people who wouldn’t),^[1] but disagree-votes will be helpful to calibrate myself on how many people saw this comment.

  1. ^

     If I conclude that out of everyone who sees an announcement about the fund, ³⁄₄ wouldn’t donate to the fund (while ¹⁄₄ would), I’d view that as a pretty positive update on how promising the Donation Election plan is (a lot of people would see an announcement about it). Absolute funding/​interest matters, not whether most people would donate. (If this comment gets very few votes, I’ll probably just not view it as a serious update in any direction.)

EA Fo­rum: plans for Giv­ing Sea­son 2023

• LizkaOct 20, 2023, 9:49 AM

  6 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: ElliotJDavies’s comment on: ElliotJDavies’s Quick takes

  Episode highlights tend to be shared under this account, which might be a good place to leave thoughts.

  Just FYI: feature suggestions for the Forum could also go on the Forum feature suggestion thread. (I’m not sure if this is meant to be a feature request for the Forum or for 80,000 Hours, though! If it’s the latter, you might want to get in touch more directly.)

• LizkaOct 18, 2023, 4:49 PM

  36 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: AMA: Six Open Philan­thropy staffers dis­cuss OP’s new GCR hiring round

  Not a question, but I was having trouble navigating earlier so I figured I’d share a list of the roles currently on the OP page:

  • AI Governance and Policy

    • (Senior) Program Associate, Generalist

    • Senior Program Associate, US AI Policy Advocacy

    • Senior Program Associate, Technical AI Governance Mechanisms

  • Technical AI Safety

    • (Senior) Program Associate, Generalist

    • Senior Program Associate, Subfield Specialist

    • (Senior) Research Associate

    • Executive Assistant

  • Biosecurity and Pandemic Preparedness

    • Security Associate /​ Lead

    • Operations Associate /​ Lead

    • Executive Assistant

    • Research Associate /​ Fellow or Lead Researcher

    • (Senior) Program Associate, Generalist

    • (Senior) Program Associate, Community Manager /​ Grantmaker

    • (Senior) Program Associate, Life Sciences Governance Grantmaker

    • Cause X Contractor

  • Global Catastrophic Risks Capacity Building

    • (Senior) Program Associate, Generalist

    • (Senior) Program Associate, AI Safety Capacity-Building

    • (Senior) Program Associate, University Groups

    • Operations Associate /​ Lead

    • Chief of Staff

  • Global Catastrophic Risks Cause Prioritization

    • Cause Prioritization Research Fellow

    • Cause Prioritization Strategy Fellow

EA Or­ga­ni­za­tion Up­dates: Oc­to­ber 2023

• LizkaOct 16, 2023, 12:23 PM

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Lizka’s comment on: Lizka’s Shortform

  Quick update: we’ve banned Defacto, who we have strong reason to believe is another sockpuppet account for Charles He. We are extending Charles’s ban to be indefinite (he and others can appeal if they want to).

  You can find more on our rules for pseudonymity and multiple accounts here. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please also feel free to reach out to us at forum-moderation@effectivealtruism.org.

• LizkaOct 16, 2023, 12:19 PM

  6 points

  3 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Lizka’s comment on: Lizka’s Shortform

  Just a quick note to say that we’ve removed a post sharing a Fermi estimate of the chances that the author finds a partner who matches their preferred characteristics and links to a date-me doc.

  The Forum is for discussions about improving the world, and a key norm we highlight is “Stay on topic.” This is not the right space for coordinating dating. (Consider exploring LessWrong, ACX threads/​classifieds, or EA-adjacent Facebook/​Reddit/​Discord groups for discussions that are primarily social.)

  We’re not taking any other action about the author, although I’ve asked them to stay on topic in the future.

• LizkaOct 13, 2023, 1:53 PM

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: [Linkpost] Fran­cis at a Fac­tory Farm – Fran­cis of As­sisi and an­i­mal welfare

  Just flagging that I love the midjourney image. I had this painting (or possibly this one) hanging near the doorway in our house when I was growing up (although my parents have never been Catholic), and the variation on the image seems to get at something important and resonates with me.

  

  Very vaguely related: What are some artworks relevant to EA?

Open Thread: Oc­to­ber—De­cem­ber 2023

• LizkaOct 4, 2023, 10:31 AM

  4 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: What do staff at CEA be­lieve? (Ev­i­dence from a rough cause prio sur­vey from April)

  Thanks!

  Definitely a bit less X-risk focused than I would have expected, although perhaps this is at least partially explained by the low response rate.

  I would be pretty surprised if the people who didn’t respond are significantly/​systematically more x-risk-focused, for what it’s worth.

• LizkaOct 3, 2023, 1:02 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: if EA di­vested from AI gov­er­nance or safety

  Moving this post to drafts, as there’s another currently up: if EA divested from AI governance/​safety

• LizkaOct 2, 2023, 5:26 PM

  6 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: WHO recom­mends R21/​Ma­trix-M vac­cine for malaria pre­ven­tion in up­dated ad­vice on immunization

  This is really exciting! Some more context and potentially relevant links:

  From the article, about the R21 vaccine:

  • High efficacy when given just before the high transmission season: In areas with highly seasonal malaria transmission (where malaria transmission is largely limited to 4 or 5 months per year), the R21 vaccine was shown to reduce symptomatic cases of malaria by 75% during the 12 months following a 3-dose series. A fourth dose given a year after the third maintained efficacy. This high efficacy is similar to the efficacy demonstrated when RTS,S is given seasonally. 

  • Good efficacy when given in an age-based schedule: The vaccine showed good efficacy (66%) during the 12 months following the first 3 doses. A fourth dose a year after the third maintained efficacy.

  • ...

  • Cost effectiveness: At prices of US$ 2 – US$ 4 per dose, the cost-effectiveness of the R21 vaccine would be comparable with other recommended malaria interventions and other childhood vaccines.

  • BBC coverage of the WHO news

    • “Each dose costs $2-4 (£1.65 to £3.30) and four doses are needed per person. That is about half the price of RTS,S. … The two vaccines use similar technologies and target the same stage of the malaria parasite’s lifecycle. However, the newer vaccine is easier to manufacture as it requires a smaller dose and uses a simpler adjuvant (a chemical given in the vaccine that jolts the immune system into action).”

  • Two earlier articles on R21/​MM that I appreciated:

    • Vox: “The new malaria vaccine is a total game changer” and “We finally have malaria vaccines. The next hurdle: Distributing them.”

    • CBC: “A new malaria vaccine could be a ‘huge deal’ in the fight to save lives in Africa and abroad” (“Ghana and Nigeria approve R21/​Matrix-M vaccine currently in Phase 3 trials, ahead of WHO review”)

  • I liked last month’s “Why we didn’t get a malaria vaccine sooner” in Works in Progress, which focused on the RTS,S vaccine. (“In sum, the RTS,S vaccine spent 23 years in 25 trials and pilot studies, before it was licensed” — see a summary in the recent EA Newsletter.)

  • Metaculus: Will global malaria mortality rates be reduced by 90% when compared with 2015 rates, by 2030?

What do staff at CEA be­lieve? (Ev­i­dence from a rough cause prio sur­vey from April)

• LizkaSep 26, 2023, 10:42 AM

  34 points

  3 ∶ 0

  on: Lizka’s Shortform

  Vasili Arkhipov is discussed less on the EA Forum than Petrov is (see also this thread of less-discussed people). I thought I’d post a quick take describing that incident.

  Arkhipov & the submarine B-59’s missile

  On October 27, 1962 (during the Cuban Missile Crisis), the Russian diesel-powered submarine B-59 started experiencing^[1] nearby depth charges from US forces above them; the submarine had been detected and US ships seemed to be attacking. The submarine’s air conditioning was broken,^[2] CO2 levels were rising, and B-59 was out of contact with Moscow. Two of the senior officers on the submarine, thinking that a global war had started, wanted to launch their “secret weapon,” a 10-kiloton nuclear torpedo. The captain, Valentin Savistky, apparently exclaimed: “We’re gonna blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all — we will not become the shame of the fleet.”

  The ship was authorized to launch the torpedo without confirmation from Moscow, but all three senior officers on the ship had to agree.^[3] Chief of staff of the flotilla Vasili Arkhipov refused. He convinced Captain Savitsky that the depth charges were signals for the Soviet submarine to surface (which they were) — if the US ships really wanted to destroy the B-59, they would have done it by now. (Part of the problem seemed to be that the Soviet officers were used to different signals than the ones the Americans were using.) Arkhipov calmed the captain down^[4] and got him to surface the submarine to get orders from the Kremlin, which ended up eventually defusing the situation.

  (Here’s a Vox article on the incident.)

  

  The B-59 submarine.

  1. ^

     Vadim Orlov described the impact of the depth charges as being inside an oil drum getting struck with a sledgehammer.

  2. ^

     Temperatures were apparently above 45ºC (113ºF).

  3. ^

     The B-59 was apparently the only submarine in the flotilla that required three officers’ approval in order to fire the “special weapon” — the others only required the captain and the political offer to approve the launch.

  4. ^

     From skimming some articles and first-hand accounts, it seems unclear if the captain just had an outburst and then accurately wanted to follow protocol (and use the missile), or if he was truly reacting irrationally/​emotionally because of the incredibly stressful environment. Accounts conflict a bit, and my sense is that orders around using the missile were unclear and overly permissive (or even encouraging towards using the missile).