Interesting points. Yes, this further complicates the analysis.
This paper estimates that $250B would reduce biorisk by 1%. Taking Ord’s estimate of 3% biorisk this century and a population of ~8 billion, we get: $250B / (8B * .01 * .03) = $104,167/life saved via biorisk interventions.
This estimate and others in that section overestimate the person-affecting value of existential risk reduction, because in the course of the century the people presently alive will be gradually replaced by future people, and because present people will become progressively older relative to these future people. In other words, the years of life lost due to an existential catastrophe relevant from a person-affecting perspective—and hence the person-affecting value of reducing existential risk—will diminish non-negligibly over a century, both as the fraction of people who morally count shrinks and as the average life expectancy of people in this shrinking group shortens.
(Adjusting the estimates to account for this effect would strengthen your point that prioritizing existential risk reduction may require assigning moral value to future people.)
@Voice works with PDFs, too, and supports neural voices such as Amazon Polly at no extra cost. See this comment of mine. However, there are a few annoyances:
The neural voices stop working eventually, for inexplicable reasons. You can re-enable them, but they will stop working again shortly thereafter. When this happens, @Voice switches to the default voice, rather than stopping playback altogether. So this issue doesn’t prevent you from listening to the book/article—but it means you won’t be able to always do so with a nice-sounding voice.
The conversion to audio doesn’t remove all extraneous elements from the text, especially in books, such as headers, footers, (sometimes) page numbers, inline citations, etc. Nor does it handle footnotes properly: books with footnotes—as opposed to endnotes—are just unlistenable.
Here’s a relevant thread by Kelsey Piper.
In my opinion, the best discussion of the optimal temporal allocation of work aimed at reducing existential risk is to be found in these two essays:
Cotton-Barratt, Owen (2015) Allocating risk mitigation across time, technical report #2015-2, Future of Humanity Institute.
Ord, Toby (2014) The timing of labour aimed at reducing existential risk, Future of Humanity Institute, July 3.
e.g. in Telegram, I can’t react to images that are sent without text & in some old group chats I can’t react to anything
You can react to images without text. But you need to tap on the side of the image, since tapping on the image itself maximizes it. (I agree this behavior is somewhat unintuitive.)
The absent reactions in old chats is because admins have the option of allowing or disallowing reactions, and since the group chats were created before reactions were introduced, Telegram doesn’t assume admins agreed to allow them; instead, they have to be enabled manually.
In this paper, MacAskill proposes it should (tentatively) be welfarism, which makes sense to me.
See also this recent post by Richard Chappell.
A couple of clarifications:
All Telegram client apps are open source, and licensed under GPLv3. Only Telegram’s server-side source code is proprietary.
End-to-end encryption is not necessarily a net positive: as discussed in the link above, it carries some costs over client-server/server-client encryption. Arguably, it’s better to give the user the option to decide when to use which, based on their weighing of the respective pros and cons, than to always enforce one option over the other.
Thank you for these instructions, which I just followed to install Signal on both my phone and my computer. I regret to say that I’m quite disappointed with this app, and won’t be migrating to it. I appreciate that Signal is more secure than the alternatives, but security is only one dimension, and Signal scores poorly on most of the other dimensions I care about.
Currently, based on my experience with Messenger, WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram, I consider Telegram to be the best messaging app by a significant margin. FWIW, about a year or so ago I felt dissatisfied with Messenger and WhatsApp, and contacted my closest EA friends to suggest a migration to Telegram. They were receptive to the proposal and now we all use that app exclusively to communicate with each other.
Some of the reasons I like Telegram:
rich text editor, with support for italics, boldface, strikethrough, code, hyperlinks
fast and powerful search
support for polls, both public and anonymous
client-server/server-client encryption, with optional support for end-to-end encryption (which strikes a good balance between security and convenience)
2x speed on voice messages
(premium version) text transcription of voice messages
(irrelevant to most people) excellent Emacs client
Is there a reason you chose not to expand the ‘OR’ acronym in your revised title (or, for that matter, in your profile bio)? Its meaning may be obvious to you, but you may be overestimating how obvious it is to others.
As a friendly suggestion, I think the first paragraph of your original comment would be less confusing if the parenthetical clause immediately followed “the best/most rigorous resources”. This would make it clear to the reader that Cotra, Carlsmith, et al are offered as examples of best/most rigorous resources, rather than as examples of resources that are widely shared/recommended.
We already have communities adjacent to effective altruism.
ETA: The description says “related to effective altruism”, though the name of the article suggests the communities are EA communities, rather than EA-related or EA-adjacent. Could you clarify the scope you had in mind?
Thanks—I’ll create this soon.
Thank you for sharing this.
Applications from the last round were due March 21, and are currently closed. We will update this page if and when they re-open.
I don’t think there’s currently a reading guide or syllabus. I suggest getting in touch with Abie to discuss this further.
The ‘Further reading’ sections are a time-cheap way of helping readers learn more about a topic, given our limited capacity to write extended entries on those topics.
I propose to delete this article by the end of Sunday if no one objects. (The reasons for deletion are stated in the comment above.)
For experimentation purposes, I think the agree-disagree voting should probably be enabled right after the post is published. Otherwise you get noisy data: some of the upvotes/downvotes will just reflect the fact that the option wasn’t enabled back when those votes were cast.