Minh Nguyen

Karma: 785

I proposed the Nonlinear Emergency Fund and Superlinear as Nonlinear Intern.^[1]

I co-founded Singapore’s Fridays For Future (featured on Al Jazeera and BBC). After arrests + 1 year of campaigning, Singapore adopted all our demands (Net Zero 2050, $80 Carbon Tax and fossil fuel divestment).

I developed a student forum with >300k active users and a study site with >25k users. I founded an education reform campaign with the Singapore Ministry of Education.

^
I proposed both ideas at the same time as the Nonlinear team, so we worked on these together.

Minh Nguyen Jan 5, 2023, 6:50 AM
3 points
1 ∶ 0
on: AI Safety Doesn’t Have to be Weird
>”AI is getting more powerful. It also makes a lot of mistakes. And it’s being used more often. How do we make sure (a) it’s being used for good, and (b) it doesn’t accidentally do terrible things that we didn’t want.”

Very similar to what I currently use!

I’ve been training with AI Safety messaging for a bit, and I’ve stuck to these principles:

1. Use simple, agreeable language.
2. Refrain from immediately introducing concepts that people have preconceived misconceptions

So mine is something like:
1. AI is given a lot of power and influence.
2. Large tech companies are pouring billions into making AI much more capable.
3. We do not know how to ensure this complex machine respects our human values and doesn’t cause great harm.

I do agree that this understates the risks associated with superintelligence, but in my experience speaking with laymen, if you introduce superintelligence as the central concept at first, the debate becomes “Will AI be smarter than me?” which provokes a weird kind of adversarial defensiveness. So I prioritise getting people to agree with me before engaging with “weirder” arguments.

Minh Nguyen Jan 5, 2023, 6:35 AM
9 points
3 ∶ 0
on: Do people have a form or resources for capturing indirect interpersonal impacts?
I’ve sent about 5 people to EA VP and AGI SF, and yes, I have thought about how to “get credit”.

I think the simplest option would be:

1. An option on applications to Intro Programs/roles that asks “Who referred you to this?”
2. A question on surveys like the annual EA Survey that asks “Which individuals/organisers have been particularly helpful in your EA journey?”
3. I’ve also thought of prizes or community days dedicated to recognising fellow EAs who have helped you a lot in your journey, but that’s a bit more complex to organise well.

Minh Nguyen Jan 5, 2023, 6:27 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: I am working on a project to view sustainability and welfare in a new evolutionary light
Hi!

Just saw this on my feed. I’m not sure if you’ve already read this, but the book Does Altruism Exist? by David Sloan Wilson is about this exact premise: altruistic/pro-social behaviours and the conditions under which it comprises a successful evolutionary strategy, both for individuals and groups. It’s written by a biologist, so I think you might find some use out of it!

Personally, I like the book and I think EAs would find it interesting. Effective Altruism has a ton of research examining the Effective part, but far less on the Altruism part. The book rigorously defines definitions such as altruism, and examines the contexts under which altruistic individuals and groups can thrive, as well as the risks that could undermine such behaviours.

Minh Nguyen Dec 29, 2022, 7:48 PM
24 points
7 ∶ 2
on: Slightly against aligning with neo-luddites
I upvoted this because AI-related advocacy has become a recent focus of mine. My background is from organising climate protests, and I think EAs have a bit of a blindspot when it comes to valuing advocacy. So it’s good to have this discussion. However, I do disagree on a few points.

1. Just Ask: In broad strokes, I think people tend to overestimate exactly how unreasonable and persistent initial objections will be. My simplest rebuttal would be: How do you know these advocates would even disagree with your approach? An approach I’m considering now is to find a decent AI Governance policy proposal, present it to the advocates explaining how it solves their problem and see who says yes. If half of them say no, you work with the other half. Before assuming the “neo-Luddites” won’t listen to reason, shouldn’t you … ask? Present them with options? I don’t see why it’s not at least worth reaching out to potential allies, and I don’t see why it’s an irredeemable sin to be angry at something with no clear solutions, when no one has presented a solution. It’s perhaps ironic the assumptions given here.

2. Counterfactuals I think by most estimates, anti-AI advocacy only grows from here. Having a lot of structurally unemployed angry people is historically a recipe for trouble. You then have to consider that reactionary responses will happen regardless of whether “we align with them”. If they are as persistently unreasonable as you say they are, they will force bad policy regardless. They will influence mainstream discourse towards their views, and be loud enough to crowd out our “more reasonable” views. I just think it makes a lot of sense to engage these groups early on, and make an earnest effort to make our case. Because the counterfactual is that they get bad policies passed without our input.

3. False dichotomy of advocates and researchers I speak more generally here. In my time in climate risk, everyone had an odd fixation on separating climate advocates and researchers.^[1] I don’t think this split was helpful for epistemics or strategy overall. Because then you had scientists who had all the solutions and epistemics that the public/policymakers generally ignored out of lack of engagement, and the advocates who started latching onto poorly-informed and counterproductive radical agendas, and were constantly rebutted with “why are we listening to you clueless youngsters and not the scientists (who we ignore anyway)”. It was just a constant headache to have two subgroups needlessly divide themselves while the clock ran down. Like sure, the advocates were … not the most epistemically rigorous. And the scientists generally struggled to put across their concerns. But I’d greatly prefer if everyone valued more communication/coordination, and not less.

And for my sanity’s sake, I’d like the AI risk community to not repeat this dynamic.
1. ^
  I suspect most of this dichotomy was not made in good faith, but simply by people uncomfortable with the premise of anthropogenic climate change and throwing out fallacies to discredit any arguments they’re confronted with in their daily lives.

Minh Nguyen Dec 29, 2022, 7:20 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Noah Scales’s comment on: Slightly against aligning with neo-luddites
Strong upvoted because this is indeed an approach I’m investigating in my work and personal capacity.

For other software fields/subfields, upskilling can be done fairly rapidly, by grinding knowledge bases with high feedback loops. It is possible to be as good as a professional software engineer quickly, independently and in a short timeframe.

If AI Safety wants to develop its talent pool to keep up with the AI Capabilities talent pool (which is probably growing much faster than average), researchers-especially juniors- need an easy way to learn quickly and conveniently. I think existing researchers may underrate this, since they’re busy putting out their own fires and finding their own resources.

Ironically, it has not been quick and convenient for me to develop this idea to a level where I’d work on it, so thanks for this.

Minh Nguyen Dec 19, 2022, 5:30 PM
8 points
0 ∶ 0
on: A sketch of leader and member-organised movements
Hi Vaidehi,
Some thoughts, as someone who has founded a climate protest movement (a Singapore branch of Fridays For Future), and also read a lot of research on social movements to inform my decision making, and also somewhat acquainted with community organising in EA:
1. The first difference I’ve seen between EA organising and climate organising is the initial barrier to new member participation. You’ve cited Extinction Rebellion as an example of member-led participation. From beginning to end, the main thing a Rebel needs to do as an active, contributing member is to show up to civil disobedience actions. While this requires personal risk and planning, it’s significantly more straightforward and well-defined than what Core EA members would usually go through. Even “beginner” EAs have to read incredibly lengthy introductions to EA. Of course, one could correctly point out that EA has significantly higher standards for epistemic rigour and sustained long-term contribution. As you note in your earlier posts in the sequence, more steps requiring more guidance/support/ feedback/expertise, drifts towards more centralisation.
2. The second difference is different demands for core members. One thing that fascinates me ever since I “transitioned” from climate movement to EA movement is how, justice sensitivity and expansive altruism aside, the two select for completely different traits. EA essentially wants highly-engaged members to do one of two things: contribute by working in EA long-term (research, operations etc.), or donating, which also skews long-term. These behaviours generally fit into a “normal” leadership hierarchy. Climate/social cause movements, meanwhile, are generally dealing with well-defined and contentious issues, where the theory of change relies on public shows of mass support. The most highly engaged members may take on high risk of social/legal/physical repercussions, and participation correlates with risk tolerance and disagreeableness. While participation does rely on strong ties,^[1] the selection pressure is practically polar opposite. Rebels are more inclined follow those willing to face prison for the cause,^[2] while EAs select for “potential for impact”, which correlates with proxies that are high-status and suitable for hierarchies (degree qualification, technical skill, references from other EAs).^[3]
Anyway, I just discovered your sequence and theories of change. I agree and have had similar thoughts for quite a while. As someone who researched member-organised movement and tried to build one as a contingency for the co-founders’ imprisonment, I’d say a member-organised structure is difficult for EA to adopt.
That said, I’m a very vocal supporter of EAs learning best practices from others. The climate movement that turned climate risk from a niche x-risk into the largest mobilisation of people, capital and resources in human history, and I regularly apply its lessons to planning EA meta/longtermism projects. Would love to talk more on this!^[4]
1. ^
  Sources: How Social Media Facilitates Political Protest: Information, Motivation, and Social Networks—Jost − 2018 - Political Psychology—Wiley Online Library, Small Change | The New Yorker
2. ^
  This also applies to some branches of FridaysForFuture where organiser status carries significant legal risks (i.e. most places outside the US and EU).
3. ^
  As a side note, I find that in EA, virtue signalling in the technical sense is far less prominent (see: opinions towards protests, intersectionality and veganism), and others have suggested that EA has a Deference Culture. There’s also the elephant in the room where “Core EA” is 70% male while climate activists are 60-70% female, a comparison that is very noticeable and very baffling.
4. ^
  Now that I’m doing the “EA networking” thing I should be more structured with introductions+engaging people across multiple topics/project ideas I have. If anyone has recommendations please let me know.

Minh Nguyen Dec 19, 2022, 2:20 PM
14 points
6 ∶ 0
on: Working with the Beef Industry for Chicken Welfare
Personally, I think the arguments put forth make sense. However, I’d simply like to caution whoever tries this that they might alienate far more potential allies purely by association with the meat industry. The benefit provided—an alliance of convenience with beef producers—will go away the moment the beef producers no longer consider it expedient, while a past association with the beef producers could be a major reputation risk for a very long time.

Not to say that such reputation risks are rational, but they exist.

Minh Nguyen Dec 16, 2022, 1:45 PM
17 points
6 ∶ 1
on: Radical tactics can increase support for more moderate groups
As someone who had previously made news for a “radical climate protest” in my country back in 2020, I agree with this finding!
I’d like to share my own application of this phenomenon:
Case study: Climate protesting in Singapore
In 2019, the wave of global youth climate activism inspired by Greta Thunberg had spread to Singapore. Broadly speaking, Asian countries are generally underrepresented in climate activism, even in developed countries. ^[1]Consequently, the inaugural SG Climate Rally was relatively small at ~2,000 participants. I helped organise this rally.
There’s a few things to note here:
1. Singapore is known for very strict laws restricting protests. Under the Public Order Act introduced in 2008, any person assembling in a public place expressing support for or against a cause must register with the police for a permit. Long story short, even a solo protest must be pre-approved by the police. And the police don’t approve topics deemed controversial … yeah.
2. Singaporeans have a very negative opinion of protesting. It’s a chicken-and-egg thing, but essentially in Singapore protesting carries a social taboo. Protests generally considered “moderate” in other countries would be considered “radical” in Singapore.
3. Singaporean climate advocacy organisations were all “moderate”. There was no “radical wing” of climate activism in Singapore. In the Singaporean context, standing in the street alone for 15 minutes to protest for climate action would be “radical”. Our Overton Window is very different.
4. Singapore had very insufficient climate commitments. In early 2020, after the SG Climate Rally, Singapore announced climate goals that included net zero timelines beyond 2050 “some time in the later half of this century” (i.e. no actual timeline), and a carbon tax of $5.
Decision Matrix
1. If I continued with “Moderate Groups”, it seemed high-probability that commitments would remain insufficient.
2. If I branched off into “Radical Tactics”, then policymakers have to deal with both “Moderate Groups” and “Radical Tactics”. Following the same logic as outlined in this post, this suggested a probability of improved climate commitments.
From an x-risk prevention POV, the idea was to increase the probability of climate action by creating the threat of radical protests to supplement/increase support for moderate advocacy.
Basically, I did not think Radical > Moderate, but rather Radical+Moderate > Moderate Only.
EV calculations of “Radical” Climate Protests
I calculated the rough Expected Value (EV) of my climate protest as follows:
- Assuming 1% chance of counterfactually affecting climate discourse (favourable due to lack of protests in SG increasing marginal benefit of 1 individual protest)
- Excess deaths from 4.0C vs 1.5C: 4 million/year
- Singapore’s contribution to excess death: 1/1000 = 4,000/year
- EV: 40 excess deaths/year = ~1,000/25 yrs
- Risk: Major tail risk of 1-2 year’s jail, criminal record, 5% chance of exile
So, with about 2-3 orders of magnitude margin of error, I figured it was high-EV. After a big controversy and a year of organising, Singapore released climate goals that included a net zero goal by 2050, and a $80 carbon tax.
Further thoughts
I think a lot of people misinterpret advocacy, or at least climate advocacy.
1. In general, people don’t like activism/protesting. More broadly, people are extra skeptical of ideas requiring high commitment that imply moral judgement. You can see this with EA, veganism, protesting, donating etc. People just don’t respond well to the implicit premise that “Because I haven’t been doing this, therefore I am immoral”, and instead it’s more comfortable to go with “I really want to believe this person is wrong and misguided.”. This applies even between activities: for example, EAs feeling awkward discussing veganism/donations/protests with other EAs, regardless of the actual EV of the actions. There’s a very valid discussion to be had with regards to the efficacy of advocacy/protest campaigns, but I’m usually wary of the extra skepticism I get just by virtue of being a climate activist and the negative connotations people have surrounding that.
2. Critics often ignore “moderate” groundwork, and then criticise a lack of moderate groundwork. A common criticism I hear to this day is “Why don’t you do [X] instead of [Y]”. X is usually implied as something vaguely less radical. However, in my experience, people who do “radical” advocacy often have years of experience in “moderate” advocacy, even simultaneously doing both. I’d say 99% of my work involved normal stuff like outreach to policymakers, organising petitions and lobbying. I think people just assume “radicals” dismiss “moderates”, when in fact radicals often respect and work closely alongside the moderates who have always comprised 99% of the climate movement, but aren’t reported on.
3. People just assume activists are attention-seeking. This one, I don’t fully get. Nowadays, there’s countless ways to optimise for attention that have no downside risk. In fact, I messaged the most attention-seeking people I knew and asked them to join, but none of them did. Instead, it was usually people who were extremely anxious about climate risk+had a very high justice sensitivity. Interestingly, all of them were either LGBTQ+ or were neurodivergent.
Anyway, just sharing my (hopefully relevant) experience. I did do a lot of social movement research literature review while organising climate protests, so even this is a very small fraction of my thoughts on the topic. People seem to assume that activists are impulsive and have poorly-crafted theories of change, so it’s hard to elaborate on reasoning when a critic just asserts that you’re dumb.

Happy to engage with other discussions on this topic! Nowadays I work at Nonlinear mainly on AI Safety/meta stuff, so climate activism doesn’t come up super often other than cross-applying x-risk theories of change.
1. ^
  The reason why is worthy of its own research/thread.

Minh Nguyen Dec 16, 2022, 10:54 AM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: How would you estimate the value of delaying AGI by 1 day, in marginal GiveWell donations?
Ride the current way of AI skepticism by people worried about it being racist, or being replaced and left unemployed. To lobby for significantly more government involvement, to slow down progress (like the FDA in medicine).
I agree! In recent days, I’ve been soundboarding an idea of mine:
Idea: AI Generated Content (AIGC) Policy Consultancy
Current Gaps:
1. Policy around services provided by AIGC is probably not gonna be good within the next decade, despite the speed with which AI will begin automating tasks and industries. See: social media, crypto policy.

2. AI Safety community currently struggles with presenting strong, compelling value propositions or near-term inroads into policymaking circles. This is consistent with other x-risk topics. See: climate and pandemic risk.

Proposition: EA community gathers law and tech people together to formulate and AIGC policy framework. Will require ~10 tech/law people which is quite feasible as an EA project.
Benefits:
1. Formulating AIGC policy will establish credibility and political capital to tackle alignment problems
2. AIGC is the most publicly understandable way to present AI risk to the public, allowing AIS to reach mainstream appeal
3. Playing into EA’s core competencies of overanalysing problems
4. Likely high first mover advantage, where if EA can set the tone for AI policy discourse, it will mitigate people believing misconceptions about AI as a new tech, which of course benefits AIS in the long run
Further Thoughts
Coming from a climate advocate background, I think this is the least low-probability way for EA to engage the public and policymakers on AIS. It seeks to answer “How to we get politicians to take EA’s AIS stances seriously”

I find that some AIS people I’ve talked to don’t immediately see the value of this idea. However, my context is that having been a climate advocate, I learned of an incredibly long history of scientists’ input being ignored simply because the public and policymakers did not prioritise the value of climate risk work.

It was ultimately engaging, predominantly youth, advocacy that mobilised institutional resources and demand to the level required. I highly suspect this will hold true for AI Safety, and I hope this time, the x-risk community doesn’t make the same mistake of undervaluing external support. So this plan is meant to provide a value proposition for AI Safety that non-AIS people understand better.

So far, I haven’t been able to make much progress on this idea. Problem being that I am neither in the law field nor technical AIS field (something I hope to work on next year), so if it happens, I essentially need to find someone else to spearhead it.

Anyway, I posted this idea publicly because I’ve procrastinating on developing it for ~1 week, so I figured it was better to send it out into the ether and see if anyone feels inspired, rather than just let it sit in my Drafts. Do reach out if you or anyone you know might be interested!

Minh Nguyen Dec 14, 2022, 11:37 PM
8 points
8 ∶ 2
in reply to: Tony Sinclair’s comment on: Wall Street Journal Reporter Looking to Speak to EAs
Why do people disagree with this comment so much? It’s sitting at −11, but strikes me as a pretty valid contribution.

Minh Nguyen Dec 12, 2022, 6:10 AM
13 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Observations of community building in Asia, a 🧵
Hi! Singaporean here. Just sharing my thoughts on this.

> Some countries have less traction with English & worry about EA being presented as Western concept (e.g. Japan & Iran). Translation of key texts seems important, and could be a way to engage newer EAs with a concrete project

Yes, this is a big bottleneck. A lot of EA terms do not have compelling equivalents in English, let alone local languages. Given how much of EA is very textually dense and jargon-filled, this can be quite awkward. I imagine translation takes up a lot of bandwidth for small EA chapters. Not to mention, a lot of the overseas valuable resources/connections EAs tend to take for granted are practically only for English-speakers.

What you said “EA being Western” is very true. Even though Singapore is very Westernised, I try as much as possible not to introduce concepts that are associated with the West. Because then EA is mentally categorised as “this Western idea” instead of its own thing.

> A Turkey CB mentioned that the fact that another group from Iran was able to get traction was inspiring, since they perceived Iran as having worse problems

I think it’s also about shared experiences. There’s some ideas such as freedom of speech or secularism that Western EAs tend to assume to be true, that are not as established in other regions.

Minh Nguyen Dec 4, 2022, 3:34 PM
13 points
3 ∶ 3
on: Announcing Nonlinear Emergency Funding
Hi!
I’m Minh, current intern at Nonlinear. Since this thread is clearly picking up again, I’d like to provide my perspective as someone who’s worked at Nonlinear, and on the Emergency Fund. First, context:
1. All this is my own experience and opinion. The fact that I had overall positive experiences does not invalidate someone else’s negative experience. I admit it’s … not a good look to have such a high rate of strong negative sentiment.
2. I’ve been working with Nonlinear for ~3 months. About 80% of my interaction is with Drew Spartz ^[1]and Luca (the other intern). The other 20% is Kat who I’ve had one 2-hour meeting with when planning the Nonlinear Emergency Fund and text correspondence/coordination as Nonlinear processes applications. I have never interacted with Emerson.
What I can do is provide additional context. So far, we’ve received ~40 applications for the Nonlinear Emergency Fund. Kat has been personally following up on requests, coordinating with external funders and handling relevant documents for dozens of grantees. To my knowledge, ~10 of the most time-sensitive requests have been approved. The responsibility is kind of insane, since improper follow-up/delay has immediate consequences on the grantee’s end. About 8 requests indicated they needed to hear back in less than a week, and the shortest was less than three days.
Motivations behind the Emergency Fund
Keep in mind that none of this is something Nonlinear actually has to do. There’s practically no direct impact to us, and the emergency funding we give out are, to my knowledge, unconditional. I did see one grant that stipulated additional non-emergency funding contingent on producing policy-actionable research, but that doesn’t benefit Nonlinear either.
During the 2-hour call when Kat, Luca and I discussed the Emergency Fund, the 2 main focuses were:
1. Prioritising immediate financial/personal emergencies of grantees
2. Prioritising counterfactual impact on EA work This means bridge-funding projects/work that would otherwise have to be stopped as grantees have to cease their work. I won’t give names, but let’s just say I was very surprised to see projects I’d used before/applied to.
At no point did I hear ulterior motives. And frankly, I feel like launching an emergency fund of your own money, when you don’t have to, isn’t the kind of thought process a selfish opportunist jumps at.
Implications
Also, keep in mind that, at the time:
1. Nonlinear also lost $250k in funding from FTX Future Fund. I have been told some of the team also had larger personal funds on FTX. If anything, FTX is paying Nonlinear if clawbacks occur.
2. Kat was entirely focused on the community. Video calling someone on a treadmill while she earnestly details plans to distribute six figures in emergency funding, right after a third of EA funding vanished overnight, is a very surreal experience.
3. Kat had no reassurance that any other funders would also step up for any of the grantees. Hence the explicit assumption was that Nonlinear’s founders would self-fund the grantees out of their own pockets. I distinctly recall her saying “If we need to fund them, that’s a good thing to do.”
Conclusion
I’ve told this story because:
1. This thread about the Nonlinear Emergency Fund has gotten wildly off tangent, so I might as well update the community with positive news. Hi!
2. I wanted to provide a contrasting perspective. The team I’ve interacted with has been talking about helping the EA community this entire time, actively coordinating and willingly paid out of pocket for people directly. While this doesn’t invalidate or excuse alleged mistreatment, I just figured my perspective would be significantly belief-updating to people who have only read accusations of morally unscrupulous behaviour for the past month.
1. ^
  Drew is great btw, but the accusations so far aren’t directed at him.
What links here?
- Minh Nguyen's comment on Sharing Information About Nonlinear by Ben Pace (Sep 8, 2023, 5:24 AM; 113 points)

Minh Nguyen Dec 3, 2022, 10:02 AM
7 points
4 ∶ 0
in reply to: Bob Jacobs’s comment on: Bringing back earning to give
Posted this early, so excuse any notifications.
instead cultivate talent that are so dedicated to EA that they’re willing to do altruistic work for very little money.
As someone who is working at an EA org for free, I don’t agree with this.
I come from a background of non-EA youth advocacy for multiple cause areas, including education, climate change and animal rights. I have had so many good co-founders go into non impact-focused, high paying roles like consulting because they don’t get paid anywhere near the value they provide.
If you want good talent that knows how to plan, takes initiative and knows how to execute, that kind of talent knows enough to apply to dozens of other better-paying roles, and probably enough to secure very high paying roles.
I work for free now because I’m in uni and it’s socially acceptable to not make full-time pay. If you underpay a competent person, they will not only face financial pressure, but also see it as a reflection of how they are valued. I don’t think this leads to healthy movement growth in the long run.

Minh Nguyen Nov 18, 2022, 6:17 PM
79 points
23 ∶ 8
on: EA is a global community—but should it be?
In the most respectful way possible, I strongly disagree with the overarching direction put forth here. A very strong predictor of engaged participation and retention in advocacy, work, education and many other things in life is the establishment of strong, close social ties within that community.

I think this direction will greatly reduce participation and engagement with EA, and I’m not even sure it will address the valid concerns you mentioned.

I say this despite the fact that I didn’t have super close EA friends in the first 3-4 years, and still managed to motivate myself to work on EA stuff as well as policy successful advocacy in other areas. When it comes to getting new people to partake in self-motivated, voluntary social causes/projects, one of the first things I do is to make sure they find a friend to keep them engaged, and this likelihood is greatly increased if they simply meet more people.

I am also of the opinion that long-term engagement relying on unpaid, ad-hoc community organising is much more unreliable than paid work. I think other organisers will agree when I say: organising a community around EA for the purpose of deeply engaging EAs is time-consuming, and greatly benefits from external guidance and financial support. If you want to get people engaging deeply with EA ideas and actually taking EA roles, unpaid volunteer organisers are a significant bottleneck. You’re expecting one organiser to regularly host events, perform tasks and engage multiple people at a deep level without central support, and that’s a very difficult ask.

I will add also that I am from a non-EA hub, and the only people I know who work full-time with EA orgs directly cite EAGs as a catalyst for their long-term involvement.

I’m just … skeptical of the theory of change put forth here.

Minh Nguyen Nov 15, 2022, 9:06 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Liv’s comment on: The FTX crisis highlights a deeper cultural problem within EA—we don’t sufficiently value good governance
Yeah, I agree. The only reason I even engaged is because a psych I saw noted down that I show signs of it, and I roll my eyes whenever psychopathy pops up in a discussion cause people just use it as a synonym for malicious.

Reading on ASPD, it’s kinda weird how people read “15% of CEOs and criminals have ASPD” and think “ASPD is the criminality and corruption disease” instead of “85% of people we should watch out for are totally capable of abuse with a perfectly normal brain, so our processes should work regardless of the offender’s brain”.

IDK, just really weird scapegoating. The original point was pretty much just about “malicious bad-faith actors” and nothing to do with ASPD.

Minh Nguyen Nov 15, 2022, 7:52 AM
12 points
6 ∶ 1
in reply to: Geoffrey Miller’s comment on: The FTX crisis highlights a deeper cultural problem within EA—we don’t sufficiently value good governance
As someone who’s worked in the mental health field, the other interesting thing I’ve read about ASPD/psychopathy is that they heavily rely on cognitive empathy over affective empathy, which … is actually a very EA trait in my opinion.

So even without nefarious intentions, I think people with ASPD would be drawn to/overrepresented within EA.

Minh Nguyen Nov 12, 2022, 5:42 AM
4 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ferenc Huszár’s comment on: If EA has overestimated its projected funding, which decisions must be revised?
As someone who (briefly) worked in VC and cofounded nonprofits, I’m not sure that’s a good signal.

”VC for charity” makes more sense when you consider that VC focus on high upside, diversification, lower information and higher uncertainty, which reflects the current stage of the EA movement. EA is still discovering new effective interventions, launching new experimental projects, building capacity of new founders and discovering new ways of doing good on a systemic level. Even today, there’s an acknowledgement that we might not know what the most cost-effective ways of doing good are.

If anything, I would argue that EA initially tried to go with “hedge fund for charity” for the first few years and this was not clearly better.

As for free spending, I’m not sure that has to do with “VC for charity”. A few of the projects I saw coming out of Future Fund were quite lean with low overhead due to everyone working remote without paying for stuff associated with normal movement building (retreats, events, office spaces etc.). The one I work at regularly debates expenses.

Minh Nguyen Nov 6, 2022, 9:44 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: Pseudonym101’s comment on: CE: Who underrates their likelihood of success. Why applying is worthwhile.
Hahaha yeah I think they still do. I mean … saying that is non-controversial, likely to be some net positive and unlikely to be a net negative. Factor in the randomness of job apps+the early career uncertainty common in young people and it kind of is the lowest common denominator advice.

In that sense I’d agree. CE is not obvious career capital to most employers. However, I would also add that as experience starting successful advocacy orgs/nonprofits is underrated by employers/HR who underrate the resilience, problem solving and adaptability required for founding stuff. Because you’re essentially responsible for multiple roles at first, and then successfully teaching/coordinating people to take over those roles. So really, if being a founder is underrated by employers, then a good incubator to be a founder would also be underrated.

Anyway, my main point is that CE and entrepreneurship in general is low-EV if you’re simply optimising for effort-vs-career-capital. However, that doesn’t say much about whether CE achieves its goals (incubating highly effective charities and creating effective founders).

Minh Nguyen Nov 6, 2022, 7:47 AM
7 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Pseudonym101’s comment on: CE: Who underrates their likelihood of success. Why applying is worthwhile.
I have no particular dog in this fight, but I’m not surprised about the lack of feedback. I come from a digital market/advocacy background, and most EAs strike me as very self-censoring by nature. Point is valid, though.

For the commitment part, I’d say it depends. I do think “career capital” means very different things in this context. If you’re optimising for climbing the career ladder, I’d say CE is of marginal value. I would not advise someone trying to find a full-time role in an EA org do this versus spend time upskilling+taking an EA-adjacent role. CE itself isn’t super well-known, so no strong benefit if you want to work in FAANG/Big Law/consulting. But for the founders CE is looking for, I think it’s super valuable. A lot of founder work is essentially the same thing: making forms, recruiting+HR, spreadsheets, filling out legal documents. Even if you’re not super interested in the cause areas, the skills are valuable to learn.

Finally, as someone who is both neurodiverse and from an underrepresented region, I do not strongly relate to your final point. Sure, the repeated assurances that “you should take this weird assessment bc we really know how to spot good founders” is weird, but I didn’t get an “excluded” vibe while applying. If anything, I’d say that relative to other EA applications I’ve experienced, I felt like I wasn’t disadvantaged outright just because I’m not from an EA hub/a prestigious uni EA club.

This is subject to change, but that’s my take.

Minh Nguyen Aug 28, 2022, 5:38 PM
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: I’m building an EA-University / Institute (and I need your help)
Well, I’m an EA and I’ve scaled+secured funding for large-scale edutech ventures. My only comment would be to provide a compelling reason for someone to apply to DI. In edutech, I find there are 3 approaches:
1. Securing funding from other institutions. By far the most common approach. Actual user experience becomes secondary if you can somehow convince schools/workplaces to sufficiently fund this, and you essentially secure a captive audience. Obviously, incentives skew here.
2. Be fun and engaging to use, and then offer premium features.
3. Present a viable alternative (in at least one niche area) to traditional education certificates
I have previously tried out an idea similar to yours. Singapore has the Skillsfuture program that subsidises job skills retraining. In theory, this is a forward-thinking move. However, in practice, the vast majority of the funding is given to the best marketers, not the best teachers. Mid-career tech transitions (usually forced) are an absolute bloodbath, and I suspect people in this job search are less receptive to adopting EA principles than they would be early in their career. After a while, the brain kind of goes into “I need a job regardless of whether it aligns with any principles”, if that makes sense.
That said I don’t know your context and future predictions based on past trends are notoriously bad, so I certainly encourage you to try.

Minh Nguyen

Case study: Climate protesting in Singapore

Decision Matrix

EV calculations of “Radical” Climate Protests

Further thoughts

Idea: AI Generated Content (AIGC) Policy Consultancy

Benefits:

Further Thoughts