Michael Noetel 🔸

• Michael Noetel 🔸 24 Feb 2025 3:34 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: ‘AI Emer­gency Eject Cri­te­ria’ Survey

  Where did this project end up? Any public results?

• Michael Noetel 🔸 21 Feb 2025 3:46 UTC

  3 points

  1 ∶ 0

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

  How do you feel about this framework?

  

• Michael Noetel 🔸 21 Jun 2024 8:55 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Richard Y Chappell🔸’s comment on: A tril­ogy on anti-philan­thropic misdirection

  Amazing. Thank you!

• Michael Noetel 🔸 28 May 2024 9:04 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MikhailSamin’s comment on: If try­ing to com­mu­ni­cate about AI risks, make it vivid

  Yes all data and code are on the osf, but to my chagrin they’re in spss. Yes good observation re the strawberry, and the imprecision around the outcome.

• Michael Noetel 🔸 28 Apr 2024 22:59 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: SebastianSchmidt’s comment on: Aus­trali­ans are con­cerned about AI risks and ex­pect strong gov­ern­ment action

  Our project took approximately 2 weeks FTE for 3 people (most was parallelisable). Probably the best reference class.

• Michael Noetel 🔸 16 Apr 2024 3:22 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: A tril­ogy on anti-philan­thropic misdirection

  Richard I really love your writing, but as a parent I find it so hard to just sit and read stuff. 95% of the forum’s content I get via the podcast feeds. Now, I don’t expect everyone to go full Experimental History or Joe Carlsmith and audio narrate each post, but unless you’re wanting to keep things on Substack turf, you might consider cross-posting the full thing here (like Bentham’s Bulldog did for the critique of the wired article). I don’t ask this of everyone, so please consider this a compliment: I love your work and want it in my ears.^[1]

  1. ^

     That sounded weirder than I meant it to

• Michael Noetel 🔸 5 Apr 2024 8:52 UTC

  15 points

  3 ∶ 0

  in reply to: JWS 🔸’s comment on: On Leif We­nar’s Ab­surdly Un­con­vinc­ing Cri­tique Of Effec­tive Altru­ism

  Hanania gives some interesting arguments for why here: https://​​www.richardhanania.com/​​p/​​effective-altruism-thinks-youre-hitler

• Michael Noetel 🔸 4 Apr 2024 10:00 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Michael Noetel 🔸’s comment on: Should EA ‘com­mu­ni­ties’ be ‘pro­fes­sional as­so­ci­a­tions’?

  One lens to look at this is less through the ‘we’re all similarly qualified’ like the AMA but more through the ‘we’re working with the same values’ or ‘we’re working on similar problems’ like the Institute of Public Administration Australia. These have no qualification requirements. Still they offer similar things to what ea communities try to do https://​​qld.ipaa.org.au/​​for-individuals/​​

• Michael Noetel 🔸 4 Apr 2024 9:41 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: James Herbert’s comment on: Should EA ‘com­mu­ni­ties’ be ‘pro­fes­sional as­so­ci­a­tions’?

  These examples at the end are interesting and worth me mulling over. I do get the sense that Greenpeace or the NAACP would do many of the things you do

• Michael Noetel 🔸 4 Apr 2024 9:29 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Chris Leong’s comment on: Should EA ‘com­mu­ni­ties’ be ‘pro­fes­sional as­so­ci­a­tions’?

  That’s a good point. All AMA members have to meet certain criteria. I can see how ’’8 week reading group” pales in comparison to a medical degree.

• Michael Noetel 🔸 4 Apr 2024 9:20 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Bella’s comment on: Should EA ‘com­mu­ni­ties’ be ‘pro­fes­sional as­so­ci­a­tions’?

  Fixed thx

• Michael Noetel 🔸 4 Apr 2024 5:04 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Crowd­sourced Overview of Fund­ing for Re­gional Com­mu­nity Build­ing Orgs

  I’m interested in the authors’ take on this question: Change my mind: EA national organisations should be ‘professional associations’ not ‘communities’

• Michael Noetel 🔸 2 Apr 2024 22:10 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: SebastianSchmidt’s comment on: Aus­trali­ans are con­cerned about AI risks and ex­pect strong gov­ern­ment action

  I’ll look into it. The census data part seems okay. Collecting a representative sample would be harder (e.g., literacy rates are lower, so I don’t know how to estimate responses for those groups).

• Michael Noetel 🔸 25 Mar 2024 4:40 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: PeterSlattery’s comment on: Aus­trali­ans are con­cerned about AI risks and ex­pect strong gov­ern­ment action

  Thanks Peter. Fixed!

• Michael Noetel 🔸 10 Mar 2024 4:15 UTC

  9 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: SebastianSchmidt’s comment on: Aus­trali­ans are con­cerned about AI risks and ex­pect strong gov­ern­ment action

  Thanks Seb. I’m not that surprised—public surveys in the Existential Risk Persuasion tournament were pretty high (5% for AI). I don’t think most people are good at calibrating probabilities between 0.001% and 10% (myself included).

  I don’t have strong hypotheses why people ‘mostly support’ something they also want treated with such care. My weak ones would be ‘people like technology but when asked about what the government should do, want them to keep them safe (remove biggest threats).’ For example, Australians support getting nuclear submarines but also support the ban on nuclear weapons. I don’t necessarily see this as a contradiction—”keep me safe” priorities would lead to both. I don’t know if our answers would have changed if we made the trade-offs more salient (e.g., here’s what you’d lose if we took this policy action prioritising risks). Interested in suggestions for how we could do that better.

  It’d be easy for us to run in other countries. We’ll put the data and code online soon. If someone’s keen to run the ‘get it in the hands of people who want to use it’ piece, we could also do the ‘run the survey and make a technical report one’. It’s all in R so the marginal cost of another country is low. We’d need access to census data to do the statistical adjustment to estimate population agreement (but that should be easy to see if possible).

• Michael Noetel 🔸 16 Feb 2024 6:36 UTC

  18 points

  3 ∶ 0

  on: So­cial sci­ence re­search we’d like to see on global health and wellbe­ing [Open Philan­thropy]

  As a social scientist, these lists are very helpful, thank you team. It’s useful to be able to point students and colleagues to open questions that are immediately decision-relevant.

• Michael Noetel 🔸 18 Aug 2023 19:40 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: benleo’s comment on: In­tro­duc­ing the Effec­tive Altru­ism Aus­tralia En­vi­ron­ment Fund (EAAE)

  Thanks for the support Ben. I love what giving multiplier are doing and we entertained the idea down here but we have more restrictive charity regranting laws down here. My understand is that giving multiplier can basically just forward re-grants to the donor’s target, but our read of the Aussie legislation is that we’d need to formally partner with every charity that a donor would want to choose.

  Our strategy for marketing to non-EAs is to partner with Giving Green to support a Manager of Climate Giving for Giving Green Australia. Basically, we work closely with Jack who’s job is to both evaluate Australian options but also to market and fundraise around effective climate giving in Australia. We’re also planning to hire a fundraiser and marketer for EAA.

• Michael Noetel 🔸 30 Jul 2023 23:06 UTC

  19 points

  4 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Magdalena Wache’s comment on: Shut­ting down AI Safety Support

  Just wanted to +1 the appreciation for all your work over the years JJ

• Michael Noetel 🔸 12 Jul 2023 23:12 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: How to Sup­port the World’s Most Effec­tive Cli­mate Char­i­ties: EAAE x EAUQ

  Thanks to all who attended this event. Such a great turnout. For more information about EAAE, or to donate, go to http://​​eaa.org.au/​​environment

• Michael Noetel 🔸 20 Jun 2023 0:04 UTC

  1 point

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Yellow (Daryl)’s comment on: AMA: Luke Free­man, ED of Giv­ing What We Can (GWWC)

  my pledge pin is my most expensive possession I own...

  Omg I’d never done those maths 😬