Minh Nguyen

• Minh Nguyen 11 Apr 2024 21:12 UTC

  8 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: Me­diocre EAs: ca­reer paths and how do they en­gage with EA?

  I think there’s 2 different questions at play here:
  
  1. Whether you’re competitive for EA roles—As others have mentioned, EA roles are competitive. To be honest, it really is just a matter of why you want an EA role.
  
  If it’s purely a matter of impact allocation, I think it’s good to just … try hard as you want and let hirers decide? Whenever I’m in an EA hiring round, I genuinely just want the most suitable person to get the job, and the EA hirers I’ve come across have been pretty good at figuring out what candidate they want. I have declined several role on this basis (it wasn’t unilateral, I explained, had a conversation with the hirers and recommended someone I thought was better-suited). The EA community is small and nice, so I’m really rooting for people to find the best role for them.
  
  If it’s a sense of community, for me I’ve been lucky to find friends in EA who will still stick around even if I Don’t Have An EA Job. I think you can definitely find close friends in EA without getting a fulltime role, and our national chapter only has like a dozen regulars.
  
  For me, I just try my best, have low expectations and vaguely tell myself it’ll work out. I also argue more people should look to start orgs, but that’s a separate issue.
  
  2. Whether you feel imposter syndrome because EAs are generally high-achieving—Objectively, EAs are on average, abnormally high-achieving. IIRC, like 20% of EAs have attended to Top 25 university and 40% have attended a Top 100 university. Which is an absolutely bonkers percentage. I do think this kind of comparison is inherent in any social setting.
  
  For me, I just talk to a lot of EAs, and realise they’re just nice nerds who like talking about ideas. The power distance feels a lot lower the more I work with them. If someone works at A Big Well-funded AI Lab and went to A Top 5 PhD Program, then yeah you’re gonna feel intimidated. But like, after a year I just started doing more research which involves pinging people dumb practical questions like “what settings on AWS do I use for a training run” or funny what-ifs like “do you think we can make Deep Learning into Deep Unlearning” (an actual thing btw). Then they’re always really nice and helpful, and I just kinda forget about the imposter syndrome.
  
  There’s also the stoic approach, which is to accept imposter syndrome as motivation to do better without letting it demotivate you. Which is prolly good if you want to improve, but easier said than done.

• Minh Nguyen 17 Feb 2024 10:11 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Minh Nguyen’s Quick takes

  In AI Safety, it seems easy to feel alienated and demoralised.
  
  The stakes feel vaguely existential, most normal people have no opinion on it, and it never quite feels like “saving a life”. Donating to global health or animal welfare feel more direct, if still distant.
  
  I would imagine a young software developer discovers EA, and then AI Safety, hoping to do something meaningful. But the moments after that, feel much the same as it would a normal job.
  
  Curious if others feel the same.

• Minh Nguyen 11 Feb 2024 17:38 UTC

  9 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jonny Spicer’s comment on: Jonny Spicer’s Shortform

  I’ve found not many people bother to play arbitrage with prosocial outcomes.

  You essentially need someone to care about prosocial outcomes, be very quantitative and strigent with calculations vs just going by concensus, and be sufficiently motivated to make life changes. In a way, being agreeable to care about others while being disagreeable enough to go against social concensus and gut feel.

  Early adopters get to play a lot of arbitrage.

• Minh Nguyen 2 Feb 2024 19:49 UTC

  13 points

  7 ∶ 0

  on: Minh Nguyen’s Quick takes

  Suggestion for EAGs/​EAGx:

  Please give more detail on your Swapcard about your research/​projects. Even just the title of the research paper, or any links.

  I always review the entire attendee list. I actively want to meet people, but if someone just puts “I am trying to get into AI alignment research”, I literally have nothing to go off, and can’t think of a reason to reach out with so few details.
  
  This also saves time during 1-on-1s so you don’t re-introduce yourself/​areas of interest every 30 minutes.
  
  If you don’t have a project/​experience, you can even put ideas you’re fascinated by, or groups you identify with. I literally Ctrl+F “ADHD”, “startup”, “Singapore” and other keywords related to my research interests.

• Minh Nguyen 15 Jan 2024 5:28 UTC

  6 points

  6 ∶ 3

  in reply to: Elizabeth’s comment on: Prac­ti­cally A Book Re­view: Ap­pendix to “Non­lin­ear’s Ev­i­dence: De­bunk­ing False and Mislead­ing Claims”

  I mean, the fact that I’ve dealt with a few similar agreements with similar/​bigger platforms, and I myself manage a bigger platform than Deck’s, and am managing my own partnership deal, similar to Deck’s.

  From my perspective, the events described really aren’t that weird. Like, at all. It’s very strange to me that the Deck story keeps coming up like some sort of smoking gun, when there seems to be nothing unusual about it in the social media marketing space.

  The deal itself is normal.

  The fact that Deck became inactive afterwards is unfortunate, but normal.

  The fact that Deck and his parent sued doesn’t really imply anything about Emerson’s character. A teenager lost interest in an online venture, comes back to demand money when the venture made money. It happens all the time.

  At least to me, it’s really weird that everyone keeps talking about it like some strong red flag.

• Minh Nguyen 12 Jan 2024 3:17 UTC

  3 points

  4 ∶ 8

  in reply to: Kelsey Piper’s comment on: Prac­ti­cally A Book Re­view: Ap­pendix to “Non­lin­ear’s Ev­i­dence: De­bunk­ing False and Mislead­ing Claims”

  Again, not a lawyer so I’m willing to accept I’m wrong.
  
  I think this very much depends on how “services requested by the company” is interpreted.

  “render internet related services as requested by the Company from time to time

  Failure by the Contractor to meet deadlines for performance of
  services or failing to meet the standards required by the Company in the
  performing of services

  You could argue that access is what’s requested, yes. Personally, I don’t, because access by default is already assumed under a later clause that uses a different wording: “The Contractor agrees not to change any passwords for any Company-related projects without the consent of the Company”

  Or you could argue that if Emerson reasonably demands active posting, he is entitled to it under the terms of the contract, and entitled to terminate the contract if this is not fulfilled. We could argue over what constitutes reasonable demands, but I would think it’s more than “almost nothing”.

  Not specifying the exact timings didn’t stand out to me. In my experience, it’s not very common to specify exact posting schedules for a long-term brand partnership with a teenager. There’s a certain expectation that teenage influencers are a little bit inconsistent.

  In any case, my point with this whole thread is that … the whole Deck thing is really not that much of a red flag? A fairly standard contract was signed with a minor and his parent, who tried to sue by invalidating the entire validity of a contract with a minor+guardian, and it seems Deck wasn’t actively involved the whole time.

  I’m not seeing obvious predatory behaviour here. Maybe poorly defined contract terms, but I really don’t see why people keep bringing this up a decade later as evidence against Emerson’s character. Keep in mind, we haven’t seen how many such contracts Spartz Inc signed without any incident.

  If this is the absolute worst example an investigation could dig up from Emerson’s 2-decade-long career, it just doesn’t seem very convincing, ya know?

• Minh Nguyen 11 Jan 2024 4:20 UTC

  18 points

  7 ∶ 4

  in reply to: Elizabeth’s comment on: Prac­ti­cally A Book Re­view: Ap­pendix to “Non­lin­ear’s Ev­i­dence: De­bunk­ing False and Mislead­ing Claims”

  Hi! Sorry for the late response, I was actually handling my own contract for a partnership with a Generative AI startup to co-develop and deploy AI character voice chat onto our platforms w ~ 1 million users. Hopefully, history does not repeat itself.
  
  There are the exact terms I’d found here (Sharing Information About Nonlinear) via Wayback Machine (archive.org).
  
  The relevant parts:
  
  The very first line under “Responsibilities of contractor”:
  > The Contractor shall render internet related services as requested by the Company from time to time
  
  > The Contractor agrees not to engage in any behavior that would cause hardship to the Company, such as instances of sabotage. The Contractor agrees not to change any passwords for any Company-related projects without the consent of the Company. Should the Contractor breach this Agreement, the Contractor will, at the Company’s edict, be required to rectify the breach, including but not limited to forfeiture of revenues and a requirement to reveal to the Company the current password of the OMG Facts Twitter account
  
  > This Agreement shall commence on the “Effective Date” defined above and shall terminate one year thereafter, provided, however, that the Company may extend this Agreement for ten additional periods of one year each upon notice to Contractor given at least thirty days prior to the expiration initial expiration date or extended term. However, either party may terminate this contract in writing in the following instances:
  (1) If either party is convicted of a criminal offense.
  (2) Failure by the Contractor to meet deadlines for performance of
  services or failing to meet the standards required by the Company in the
  performing of services
  
  Obviously, I am not a lawyer, but there’s indeed several key clauses in there mentioning an obligation to actively perform services, which in the case of OMGFacts would essentially mean making Twitter posts. I don’t think there’s anything there that’s particularly “predatory”?.
  
  Regarding whether Deck performed this responsibility:^[1]
  > Here is the untold side of the story: The @OMGFacts Twitter (and Website/​YouTube) is produced by us, not him. Adorian has done almost nothing for the past 15 months. Almost every fact you have read from OMG Facts was researched, written, and edited by us.

  I will note that I couldn’t find any examples of Deck disputing that he was inactive. Deck’s lawyer instead argued that contracts signed by Deck himself were invalid even if co-signed by his guardians.

  Again, I’m not a lawyer, but if Emerson’s main argument was that Deck didn’t uphold his responsibility, you’d think the easiest rebuttal would be that … he did things as per the contract. Instead of arguing that Deck signed the contract without knowing what he was doing:^[2]

  Deck’s complaint contends that the contract he signed with Spartz was predatory and designed to dupe the teen into turning over his rights to the OMG Facts trademark without realizing what he was doing. Deck’s attorney, Glenn Peterson of Roseville, argues that the intellectual property issues are moot in any case because California law allows individuals to disavow any contracts signed when they were minors.
  Spartz counters that Deck’s mother co-signed the contract as his legal guardian, and that Deck is simply hoping to exploit Spartz Inc.’s hard work for a quick gain.

  So even just using public sources, we can establish that there were multiple clauses referencing an obligation to actively post, that Emerson claims Deck did not fulfil this, and Deck never even attempts to deny this, instead trying to invalidate the contract altogether. I don’t see a particularly strong reason to “side with Deck” on this one, unless there’s any claims/​evidence that he did perform his responsibility that he hasn’t publicly disclosed for 15 years.

  1. ^

     Emerson Spartz, OMG Fact: There are two sides to every story. (archive.org)

  2. ^

     California teen’s lawsuit over Twitter feed underscores power of a tweet (jacksonville.com)

• Minh Nguyen 5 Jan 2024 13:54 UTC

  21 points

  13 ∶ 11

  on: Prac­ti­cally A Book Re­view: Ap­pendix to “Non­lin­ear’s Ev­i­dence: De­bunk­ing False and Mislead­ing Claims”

  I’m not going to lie, I disagreed with a lot of this, especially the conclusion. I don’t quite have the time to respond to all of it, but I’ll address Adorian Deck.

  Deck sued for more money. Emerson knew that Deck’s dream was to become a YouTuber, so he threatened to get two top YouTubers to create videos slamming Deck. In response, Deck settled in what Emerson characterizes as “a deal he was satisfied with that gave him significant financial freedom.”

  Here’s the timeline as I understand it (it’s been a while):
  1. Deck builds a big social media account.

  2. Emerson approaches Deck, offering to buy the brand and profit-share, under certain stipulations, including that he continue actively posting.

  3. Deck no longer actively posts, essentially ending the contract terms and releasing Emerson’s obligation to pay him.

  To me, this seems pretty fair and standard? It doesn’t seem particularly different from a brand acquisition or an influencer marketing program. Lots of founders get acquired and compensated with the stipulation that they keep performing their work under the new entity. Emerson is paying Deck to make posts in his own style. The alternative is to hire someone else to do it, and that’s not ideal if you want to preserve the appeal of the original.

  But the OMGFacts brand itself was valuable: that’s why Emerson bought it instead of starting a competing YayFacts Twitter account. Emerson probably paid more to the lawyer who negotiated the contract than he did to Deck—the person who created the brand in the first place.

  Social media brands that don’t post have no value.

  And, in my experience managing platforms and accounts much bigger than Deck’s, brands are a multiplier, but have very little value on their own. The average person follows hundreds of accounts on multiple platforms. If a Fun Facts account isn’t posting for a year, no one’s gonna notice, and their posts won’t show up because their followers’ feed will be occupied by accounts that do post regularly.

  A California law invalidates any contract with a minor that isn’t overseen by a judge—a crucial protection for child actors, who are often exploited by their parents. Emerson characterizes this law as a “bizarre loophole,” which strikes me as a very cavalier attitude towards children’s labor protections.

  I mean, sorta? But of the entire influencer ecosystem, many are teenagers and very few have had their brand deals overseen by a judge. I doubt Mr Beast’s first sponsor check was overseen by a judge. You’re technically correct, but in practice it would be quite the demanding ask to have a judge oversee every contract with a minor influencer.

• Minh Nguyen 21 Dec 2023 18:50 UTC

  12 points

  3 ∶ 1

  on: At­ten­tion on AI X-Risk Likely Hasn’t Dis­tracted from Cur­rent Harms from AI

  Thank you for this! This is 1 less misconception to deal with.
  
  I always get suspicious when someone treats societal issues like a zero-sum game. Yes, we can worry about more than 1 thing at a time, and it’ often not very productive to frame caring about things as oppositional to caring about another thing

• Minh Nguyen 12 Dec 2023 14:30 UTC

  45 points

  25 ∶ 9

  on: Non­lin­ear’s Ev­i­dence: De­bunk­ing False and Mislead­ing Claims

  How do we prevent the methodology of exclusively seeking and publishing negative information, without fact checking, from becoming an acceptable norm?

  Re: Checking that claims are true

  Adding on as former Nonlinear intern who was aware of a “falling out” between Alice and Nonlinear for almost a year now:

  1. To my knowledge, Nonlinear was given very few/​practically no opportunities to respond to the many claims made in “Sharing Information About Nonlinear” before they were posted, despite repeatedly communicating for several months that this counter-evidence was available to Ben and some CEA employees.

  2. I understand that the power asymmetry, high-trust environment and ethical standards within EA makes this complicated to resolve. However, my issue is that the vast majority of the claims made were easily verifiable/​falsifiable. Things like payment/​lack of payment, delivery orders, messages, receipts, who stayed where etc. all have paper trails. If it’s so trivially easy to verify, there is a responsibility to verify!

  I’m not against Ben and Alice choosing to post this. I believe we should normalise people exercising their option to speak out publicly. The alternative is being silenced by massive power asymmetry.

  What I am against, is the way these allegations were made, which did not prioritise verifying allegations/​claims when repeatedly presented with significant, factual counter-evidence.

  Why was Nonlinear not given some chance to present counterevidence? It’s clear the initial investigation took months to gather; only a few days (two days, I think) before posting were Kat and Emerson presented with this, after reaching out to Ben several times! Even granting Nonlinear a day to submit an official refutation of the top 5-10 claims for review would have made a difference.^[1] And that’s before factoring in the asymmetry required to refute these allegations with evidence vs making the initial allegations.

  I think the handling of this community issue was not healthy for EA/​longtermism. Fewer people will read this post than the initial allegations, and Nonlinear’s reputation has definitely been harmed. At best, future whistleblowers are less likely to be believed. I don’t see this as a win for anyone.

  Personal Story: How unverified allegations cause harm to real people

  Throughout this discussion, there was this undertone that over-weighting Alice’s claims justified the increased reputational risk to Nonlinear, because Kat and Emerson are “better-off” than Alice, so harming them is a more “acceptable” risk because Kat and Emerson will still do fine, whereas Alice is new and less established in EA.

  I’d like to say that these allegations don’t just affect Emerson and Kat. It affects the many independent AI Safety researchers Nonlinear helps fund.^[2] It also affects Nonlinear’s other employees. It has personally affected me. I am from Southeast Asia, where it’s much harder to find work in EA/​longtermism than in EA hubs. Nonlinear was the first (and currently only) EA org I’ve interned at.

  Nonlinear had formally stopped hiring interns when I applied, due to the incidents mentioned above. I contributed to the Superlinear bounty platform as a remote volunteer, without knowing it was owned by Nonlinear, or what Nonlinear was. I had spent so much time trying to contribute to EA part-time, that I wanted to make the experience easier for others.

  When I was hired as an intern, I texted my friend “What’s Nonlinear? Are they … like, a big deal?”. My friend explained that having Nonlinear as a reference would help me gain admission to EA conferences, and be taken seriously for EA job applications.

  Now that Nonlinear’s reputation within EA has been seriously harmed, I’ve been very concerned about how this affects my ability to contribute within EA. Should I add Nonlinear/​Kat as references and risk very negative associations, or omit them and risk being overlooked in favour of other applicants who do have references from prominent EAs? It means a lot to me because, as a non-US/​EU/​UK citizen, I know I’m always applying at a significant disadvantage.^[3] I will always have fewer opportunities than an EA born in London who goes to a prestigious UK college with an active EA chapter and many EA internship options, who doesn’t have additional Visa requirements. And if I get rejected for a role, I often don’t get to know why.

  I didn’t mention this before, because I cared about whether Alice was actually abused. I had a hunch they were making false claims, but I didn’t want to invalidate victims who might be telling the truth. As of now, this seems … less likely.

  These allegations do cause harm: to me, to other Nonlinear employees trying to contribute to EA and the people Nonlinear helps through our work.

  In the future, please verify these more seriously. Thank you.

  1. ^

     The first time I asked Nonlinear about the allegations, it took me maybe 5-10 minutes to figure out there were multiple misleading statements, since I was shown message logs.

  2. ^

     In fundraising, reputation matters. Serious, public allegations of abuse means funders are (rightfully) hesitant, and less funding goes to researchers.

  3. ^

     If you are reading this and trying to get into AI Safety/​longtermism from a non EA hub, do reach out and I’ll try to reply when I can! We gotta support each other >:)

• Minh Nguyen 2 Dec 2023 5:16 UTC

  5 points

  5 ∶ 0

  on: Philoso­phers Against Malaria Fundraiser

  a very minor and inconsequential point:
  
  I initially read this as “Philosophers Against Malaria Fundraisers” and thought it was gonna be an interesting essay about how AMF fundraisers are bad, actually.

• Minh Nguyen 25 Nov 2023 4:46 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

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

  I find that asking EAs (or anyone, really) for open-ended feedback tends not to yield novel insight by default. EAs tend to have high openness, and as long something passes the bar of “this has plausible theory of change, has no obviously huge downside and is positive EV enough to be worth exploring” , it isn’t subject to particularly intense scrutiny. Consider also that you have thought about the problem for days/​weeks whereas they’ve only thought about it for maybe 10-20 minutes

  Haven’t found a 100% perfect solution, but usually I express my 2-3 most pressing doubts and ask them whether there’s a possible solution to those doubts. It scopes the question towards more precise, detailed and actionable feedback.

  Alternatively, if the person has attempted a similar project, I would ask them what goals/​principles they found most important, and 2-3 things they wish they knew before they’d started.

• Minh Nguyen 23 Nov 2023 7:55 UTC

  7 points

  3 ∶ 2

  in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: Eliz­a­beth’s Quick takes

  I will say I also never use the Drowning Child argument. For several reasons:

  • I generally don’t think negative emotions like shame and guilt are a good first impression/​initial reason to join EA. People tend to distance themselves from sources of guilt. It’s fine to mention the drowning child argument maybe 10-20 minutes in, but I prefer to lead with positive associations.

  • I prefer to minimise use of thought experiments/​hypotheticals in intros, and prefer to use examples relatable to the other person. IMO, thought experiments make the ethical stakes seem too trivial and distant.

  What I often do is to figure out what cause areas the other person might relate to based on what they already care about, describe EA as fundamentally “doing good, better” in the sense of getting people to engage more thoughtfully with values they already hold.

• Minh Nguyen 22 Nov 2023 2:14 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: James Herbert’s comment on: James Her­bert’s Shortform

  On CB, my views that are half informed by EA CBs and half personal opinions:

  1. Very casual events—If you are holding no events for a long time and don’t have much capacity, just hold low-stakes casual events and follow-up with high-engaged people afterwards. Highly-engaged people tend to show up/​follow up several times after learning about EA anyway. 80-90% of the time, I think having some casual events every few weeks is better than no casual events.

  2. Bigger events—Try to direct highly-engaged people to bigger and/​or more specialised events. The EA community is big and diverse, and letting people know other events exist lets them self-select better. When I first explored beyond EA Singapore, I spent 2 months straight learning about every EA org and resource in existence, individually reviewing all the Swapcard profiles at every EAG. That was absolutely worth the effort, IMO.^[1]

  3. 1-on-1s are probably still important − 1-on-1s with someone of very similar interest areas or career trajectories are the most valuable experiences in EA, in my opinion. Only 10% of 1-on-1s are like this, but they more than make up for the 90% that don’t really go anywhere. As much as I try to optimise, this seems to be a numbers game of just finding and meeting a lot of potentially interesting people.^[2]

  4. Online resources—For highly-engaged EAs, important information should be online-first. I’m of the opinion that highly-engaged/​agentic new EAs tend to read a lot online, and can gain >80% of the same field-specific knowledge reading on their own. This especially holds true in AI Safety, which is like … code and research that’s all publicly available short of frontier models. I think events should be for casual socials, intentional networking and accountability+complex coordination (basically, coworkers).

  1. ^

     If you want the ⁸⁰⁄₂₀ for AI Safety, check out aisafety.training, aisafety.world, check EA Forum, Lesswrong and Alignment Forum once a week (~1 hour/​week), check 80k job board and EA Opportunities Board once a week (~20 minutes/​week), review forum tags for things like prizes, job opportunities and research programs to see what programs were run last year that will be run again this year.

     It is possible to capture all open opportunities this way. The rest is just researching interesting orgs, seeing which ones you vibe with and engaging with them. This is just for AI Safety, for other cause areas I’d expect the same amount of time spent passively checking.

  2. ^

     My personal view is people should slightly prioritise “potentially interesting” over “potentially useful”. The few times I’ve met EAs just because they’re high-ranking, the conversation is usually generic and could have been had by Googling and emailing/​texting.

• Minh Nguyen 21 Nov 2023 13:02 UTC

  6 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: James Herbert’s comment on: James Her­bert’s Shortform

  I have heard many people argue against organising relatively simple events

  I’m actually very surprised to hear this. What does the “common view” presume then?
  
  Personally, I see 3 tiers of events: 1. Any casual, low-commitment, low stakes events 2. Big EA conferences that I find quite valuable for meeting lots of people intentionally and socially 3. Professionally-focused events (research fellowships, incubators etc)
  
  I think “simple” events like 1 are great for socialising and meeting new people. While 2 and 3 get more done, I don’t think the community would feel as welcoming if the only events occurring were ones where you had to be fully professional.
  
  Sometimes I still want to interact with EAs, but without the expectation of “meeting right” or “networking”. I suspect this applies especially to introverts and beginners. Even just going to a conference with the expectation of booking lots of 1-on-1s vs just chilling feels very different.

• Minh Nguyen 21 Nov 2023 9:16 UTC

  10 points

  3 ∶ 0

  in reply to: John G. Halstead’s comment on: CEA is fundrais­ing, and fund­ing constrained

  Perhaps the thinking was that FTX is not directly relevant to this specific post?
  
  But I agree, clearly FTX is on the minds of many people reading this, so avoiding the elephant in the room is not working.

• Minh Nguyen 18 Nov 2023 2:17 UTC

  52 points

  9 ∶ 8

  on: Sam Alt­man fired from OpenAI

  Found this on Reddit: Anxious_Bandicoot126 comments on Sam Altman is leaving OpenAI (reddit.com)

  I feel compelled as someone close to the situation to share additional context about Sam and company.

  Engineers raised concerns about rushing tech to market without adequate safety reviews in the race to capitalize on ChatGPT hype. But Sam charged ahead. That’s just who he is. Wouldn’t listen to us.

  His focus increasingly seemed to be fame and fortune, not upholding our principles as a responsible nonprofit. He made unilateral business decisions aimed at profits that diverged from our mission.

  When he proposed the GPT store and revenue sharing, it crossed a line. This signaled our core values were at risk, so the board made the tough decision to remove him as CEO.

  Greg also faced some accountability and stepped down from his role. He enabled much of Sam’s troubling direction.

  Now our former CTO, Mira Murati, is stepping in as CEO. There is hope we can return to our engineering-driven mission of developing AI safely to benefit the world, and not shareholders.

  Obviously just speculation for now, but seems plausible. The moment the GPT store was released I thought:

  “wow that’s really good for business … wow that’s really bad for alignment”

• Minh Nguyen 12 Nov 2023 6:44 UTC

  11 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: “Effec­tive Altru­ism, Longter­mism, and the Prob­lem of Ar­bi­trary Power” by Gwilym David Blunt

  Honestly, I like that this essay tries to engage with and understand EA more than other critiques I’ve seen. Usually when I see an article about EA’s association with billionaires/​elites, it tends to be a lot less substantive.

  I do agree that EA decision making generally biases towards privilege. EA orgs pretty openly bias towards recruiting and hiring from prestigious universities, which are significantly overrepresented in EA demographics. I also recall data from Spencer Greenberg that essentially placed EAs as ideologically centrist, as oppose to more left-leaning social movements popular with similar demographics.

  I think her critique here is actually quite sound:

  Effective altruism, when it began, had ascetic norms designed to constrain power, but slowly and surely they have been eroded by arguments about ‘effectiveness’, and as they receded the absence of strong institutional constraints became apparent. This leaves effective altruism and longtermism exposed to what we may call ‘the despotism trap’.

  It rejects constraints against these visionaries as the pettiness of small minds. They drape themselves in the regalia of liberty to challenge government, but their interest is in being able to exercise uncontrolled power. The excuse is that the ends will justify the means. We can see how these attitudes have influenced effective altruism when it overlaps with ‘philanthrocapitalism’, whereby people like Gates bring the mechanisms of the market into philanthropy on the grounds that is more effective.

  I think this is a pretty accurate description. EA and EA-adjacent orgs are generally funded by rich philanthropists, and receive less support and collaboration with governmental bodies. A lot of EA-adjacent or recommended orgs exist in the private sector. I think at the very least, we have to acknowledge that funding sources do affect culture. EA happens to be disproportionately funded by tech billionaires, so EA is more likely to be sympathetic to the views and ideologies of tech billionaires.

  I think where outside critics get it wrong, is the interpretation that because EA is funded by social elites, it actively sides/​colludes with social elites. I’m not sure how to convey it, but outside coverage seems to imply that EA is essentially a front for social elites to gain more power without actually doing any good, when my take is that EA began in elite college campuses, and so the most accessible sources of support and funding just happened to be social elites. Most notably, coverage of EA often focuses more on ties with social elites than the actual work done by EA orgs in various cause areas. The average article I read contains maybe 1-2 brief sentences about the fairly complex work/​research done by EA orgs, and the rest of the article is just speculating about its ties w rich elites.

• Minh Nguyen 8 Nov 2023 5:08 UTC

  6 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: AMA: Ben West, former startup founder and EtGer

  When founding something new, how do you balance money and impact?

  I’m (attempting to be) an EA entrepreneur, but I find it difficult to balance finding product-market-fit+scaling with actual impact. At different times, I’ve found myself focusing too much on building something “big” that doesn’t have any actual object-level impact, or being too perfectionist about optimising impact versus simply doubling down on something that works and is influential/​makes lots of money.

  I haven’t figured it out and don’t expect this to be an easy answer, so just curious what your thoughts are on the resource/​impact tradeoffs in decision making.

• Minh Nguyen 4 Nov 2023 4:25 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Meta Co­or­di­na­tion Fo­rum 2023: Pro­ject brain­storm

  Just gonna weigh in on some of these from my time researching this stuff at Nonlinear.

  A common knowledge spreadsheet of directly responsible individuals for important projects.

  Strongly agree. It’s logistically easy to do, one person could cover 80% of EA projects within a week. I’ve been using AI Existential Safety Map (aisafety.world) a lot in my list of followups for 1-on-1s.

  In the long run, a well-maintained wiki similar to/​synced with the EA Opportunities Board (which I also heavily recommend) could make this really comprehensive.

  More “public good”-type resources on the state of different talent pipelines and important metrics (e.g., interest in EA).

  I read every EA survey I see. They’re often quite interesting and useful. I wouldn’t say they’re neglected since EAs do seem to love surveys, but usually a net positive.

  More coherent and transparent communication about the funding situation/​bar and priorities.

  I am of the opinion that every EA funder should be as transparent and detailed about their funding bar/​criteria as possible. Unlike for-profits/​VCs, I don’t see a strong reason for secrecy other than infohazards. It helps applicants understand what funders look for which helps both funders and applicants. I believe that applicant misconceptions about “what funders want” can hinder EA a lot in the long run due to mismatched incentives. I see a lot of compelling project directions censored/​discarded in the early stages simply because applicants think they should be more generic (because being more generic works well in conventional success pathways).

  More risk management capacity for EA broadly as a field and not just individual orgs.

  I really liked this post Cash and FX management for EA organizations — EA Forum (effectivealtruism.org) by @JueYan.

  Advanced 80K: Career advice targeted at highly committed and talented individuals.

  Agree, but I never figured out how to scalably execute this. Usually, if someone has a skillset+motive to do really well in EA, my priority is to 1. inform them of helpful resources to fill in themselves 2. try to link them with someone doing what they’re trying to do.

  The problem is that it seems hard to predict in advance who they’d consider a valuable connection. I think none of my most valuable connections in EA so far would’ve been referred to me by someone else.

  Tractable idea: A list of helpful links sent to EAGx and EAG attendees post-conference.

  A survey to identify why high-value potential members “bounce off” EA.

  I actually have bounced off EA for 3 years before (2019-2022). For me, the big reason was that I couldn’t find any follow-up steps to pursue (especially coming Singapore). My experience within EA is very inspiring and exciting interactions followed by not much follow-up (guidance, next steps, pursuing opportunities, encouraging people to start projects etc.).

  [just gonna agree with all the AI Safety points, they’ve all come up before in my discussions]

  Evaluation and Accountability

  Shoutout to @Mo Putera who is working on this.

  Media and Outreach

  Casual observation that I can’t recall a single EA social media account that I browse simply because it’s fascinating and not because I wanna support EA on social media.

  And I’m into weird stuff, too. I just binged hour-long videos on Soviet semiconductors and the history of Chang’an.

  Incubators: One respondent stated that incubators are “super hard and over-done,” mentioning that they are too meta and often started by people without entrepreneurial experience.

  Agree, this point has been discussed in detail before. What we learned from a year incubating longtermist entrepreneurship — EA Forum (effectivealtruism.org)

  I think it’s just hard to do well because there’s so many points of failure, it takes a long time for any results to show and it requires both social skills and technical expertise. That said, I do think a longtermist version of Charity Entrepreneurship seems promising to pilot (actually, I’m gonna bring this up to Kat Woods right now).

  Fastgrants and other quick funding mechanisms.

  I really like Manifund as a platform!