I don’t think that they own the EA community an explanation (it would be nice, but they don’t have to). The only people that can have a right to demand that are the people that have appointed them there and the OAI staff.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zuqpqqFoue5LyutTv/the-ea-community-does-not-own-its-donors-money
>I might as well give my money to the San Francisco Symphony. At least they won’t spend it ruining things that I care about.
It is your right, but I don’t know how this is related? How have they spent EA donors’ money? If you are referring to the Open Phil $30M grant, Open Phil doesn’t take donations so they can donate to whoever they want and don’t need to explain themselves. It would have been different if Open AI was spending GiveWell’s money.
m(E)t(A)
Effective Altruism Bulgaria 2024 First Meetup
I have no idea what to make of this legal speak, but just the next memo (number 3746) mentions EV UK and some settlement for $4MM
If anyone can explain what this means that would be great
Effective Altruism Bulgaria Summer Meetup
Has anything changed on the forum recently? I am no longer able to open posts in new tabs with middle-click? Is it just me?
My understanding of a ‘hot take’ is that it is an opinion that is rather controversial, not one that hasn’t been thought for long? I think I can definitely have hot takes that I have deliberated on for long
Why do you think it is “understandable” that lots of grants are not public?
This whole experience has made me realize there is very little transparency regarding group funding and groups in general...
...Is this information public but buried in some long PDF report? Or is it not public at all?Is there a reason why this information is not public (besides “it will take time to generate/maintain it and we would rather spend our time on more impactful work) ? Are there any downsides to making this information public?
Thanks for the answer, Rik, I appreciate it, even though I disagree with some points.
I don’t agree that the evidence is solid that the investment is safe, mainly because “Past performance does not guarantee future results”. For good or bad we live in interesting times, black swan events seem to happen more often and I don’t think the way the stock marked moved in the 1900s is indicative of how it will go in the 2000s.
Also there have been long periods where the stock market has been negative, for example Japan’s “Lost decade” (more like lost 30 years). If such a think happens you will not generate any interest and thus there will be no profit. How do you plan to cover operational costs if you have few consecutive years with no interest?
40+% average return is… too good to believe. Have you updated the numbers for this year as well or this is only for last year?
I am also very much against statements like “Your invested donation generates a profit” which are misleading. The donors should be made aware that their donation may as well generate a loss and I don’t see this warning anywhere on the site.
Did I read the financial statement correctly, that the organization is currently running at a loss? How are you currently covering costs? How do you expect your expenses to scale if the donations scale?
Coinbase wants to charge me 3% to buy USDC with a debit card (the only option I’m given) and according to Polymarket’s deposit page FTX does not support Polygon transfers of USDC
Do you know what is the cheapest way to convert fiat into USDC? Because if I get charged 2% on the conversion in and out it changes the payout dramatically
Why there hasn’t been a consensus/debate between people with contradicting views on the AGI timelines/safety topic?
I know almost nothing about ML/AI and I don’t think I can form an opinion on my own so I try to base my opinion on the opinions of more knowledgeable people that I trust an respect. However what I find problematic is that those opinions vary dramatically, while it is not clear why those people hold their beliefs. I also don’t think I have enough knowledge in the area to be able to extract that information from people myself eg. if I talk to a knowledgeable ‘AGI soon and bad’ person they would very likely convince me in their view and the same would happen if I talk to a knowledgeable ‘AGI not soon and good’ person. Wouldn’t it be good idea to have debates between people with those contradicting views, figure out what the cruxes are and write them down? I understand that some people have vested interests in one side of the questions, for example a CEO of an AI company may not gain much from such debate and thus refuse to participate in it, but I think there are many reasonable people that would be willing to share their opinion and hear other people’s arguments. Forgive me if this has already been done and I have missed it (but I would appreciate if you can point me to it).
Perhaps we can forecast how successful this focus area would be /hj