Pseudonym101

• Pseudonym101 6 Dec 2022 1:31 UTC

  −7 points

  0 ∶ 1

  on: Why Neu­ron Counts Shouldn’t Be Used as Prox­ies for Mo­ral Weight

  Neuron counts should not be used as a proxy for moral weights. Neurons are biological cells in the nervous system that are responsible for transmitting information, but they are not directly related to moral values or decisions. Moral weights are determined by an individual’s values, beliefs, and ideas about what is right and wrong. Therefore, neuron counts cannot be used to accurately measure moral weights.

• Pseudonym101 3 Dec 2022 12:23 UTC

  0 points

  2 ∶ 18

  in reply to: Truck Driver Wannabe’s comment on: I’m a 22-year-old woman in­volved in Effec­tive Altru­ism. I’m sad, dis­ap­pointed, and scared.

  I did not know Kathy well, but I did meet and talk with her at length on a number of occasions in EA/​aligned spaces. We talked about cultural issues in the movement and for what it is worth, she came across as someone of good character, good judgement and measured takes.

  I am not across the particulars of her accusations and I feel matters like this have a place, actual courts and not forums. I don’t think cherry picked criticisms of her claims are appropriate.

  I think EA will continue to stumble on this issue, and our downfall as a movement will continue to be handling deontologicaly or virtuously abhorrent behaviour.

  I think the author of this forum post has been points of great importance. In particular, their critique of the style of writing required to be taken seriously and understood in the manner intended, is novel.

• Pseudonym101 21 Nov 2022 7:29 UTC

  −5 points

  1 ∶ 11

  in reply to: Guy Raveh’s comment on: Kel­sey Piper’s re­cent in­ter­view of SBF

  I think he’s pretending to be malicious to protect the movement

• Pseudonym101 15 Nov 2022 12:58 UTC

  −36 points

  5 ∶ 20

  on: What Hap­pened at Alameda Research

  SBF destroys crypto, the biggest ponzi scheme of the 21st century, saving millions of people billions of dollars in losses and immeasurable heartache in the long run

  Pretty altruistic imo

• Pseudonym101 13 Nov 2022 11:00 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: How to change a sys­tem from the inside

  This is an exceptional write-up. Thank you. I have learned a lot from it I’ll be able to apply right away!

• Pseudonym101 10 Nov 2022 21:42 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: I Con­verted Book I of The Se­quences Into A Zoomer-Read­able Format

  Oh my goodness, this worked on me! I think you’re onto gold

• Pseudonym101 10 Nov 2022 3:58 UTC

  0 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Kevin Lacker’s comment on: Does the US pub­lic sup­port rad­i­cal ac­tion against fac­tory farm­ing in the name of an­i­mal welfare?

  Yes I implore readers to defer to common sense here. The face validity of there results is poor and I would suggest further work is done to improve the survey methodology, understanding people’s understanding of the question and how they’d change their response in relation to a political campaign where there would be a saturation of information from very powerful commercial agricultural interests. I’m sick of seeing EA making political blunders.

• Pseudonym101 9 Nov 2022 23:30 UTC

  0 points

  2 ∶ 5

  in reply to: trait-feign’s comment on: FTX will likely go bankrupt. What we know and some fore­casts on what will hap­pen next

  The communication norms of the movement either have created the movement’s impotence relative to its potential or have been powerless to change that. I think we should be prepared to challenge EAs cultish mistakes even if we’ll get downvoted for it

• Pseudonym101 9 Nov 2022 23:28 UTC

  9 points

  3 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Erich_Grunewald 🔸’s comment on: FTX will likely go bankrupt. What we know and some fore­casts on what will hap­pen next

  SBF could have liquiditated and redistributed earlier rather than continuing to build risky leverage. This is true of any billionaire that may claim they’re trying to hoard more because they can in the long run then donate more

• Pseudonym101 9 Nov 2022 23:23 UTC

  1 point

  2 ∶ 2

  in reply to: N N’s comment on: FTX will likely go bankrupt. What we know and some fore­casts on what will hap­pen next

  Redistribution—I think the tacit endorsement of extreme inequality of means by the movement could be net negative long run

• Pseudonym101 9 Nov 2022 4:25 UTC

  −11 points

  12 ∶ 11

  on: FTX will likely go bankrupt. What we know and some fore­casts on what will hap­pen next

  It’s almost like putting all our eggs in one basket was a bad idea

  Reliance on billionaires is not the way

• Pseudonym101 7 Nov 2022 21:09 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: KarolinaSarek’s comment on: CE: Who un­der­rates their like­li­hood of suc­cess. Why ap­ply­ing is worth­while.

  Great points well made

• Pseudonym101 7 Nov 2022 10:32 UTC

  0 points

  1 ∶ 3

  in reply to: KarolinaSarek’s comment on: CE: Who un­der­rates their like­li­hood of suc­cess. Why ap­ply­ing is worth­while.

  Thanks for the reply. Needless to say, when you’re surveying 7 people they have reason to be concerned that they’ll be identifiable from their responses. I will be abstaining from providing details shared with me from the past charity starter including their main concerns because I’m not in a position to judge if they’d be identifiable from that, but would encourage you to collect such feedback. I think it’s safe enough to say that they weren’t from the most recent cohort

  Re non discriminatory hiring, I don’t think the ‘we have neurodivergent staff’ angle is the way to go (ala ‘my best friend is black’ response) - you might just be selecting for neurodivergence in the same direction. I think the fact your hiring process specifically seeks out peoples ability on your selection tests is the problem, because that gauges skills without the broader context of a persons life, where they may be able to adapt to disability and other circumstances. For that reason, there is merit in say deferring to a resume and work experience which can illustrate that sometimes. Other times, selecting people more generously then ensuring you have good enough training systems to develop them up to do a good job is what you should focus on—suddenly apparent talent bottlenecks looks like a training capability skills gap.

• Pseudonym101 6 Nov 2022 20:16 UTC

  1 point

  1 ∶ 1

  in reply to: Minh Nguyen’s comment on: CE: Who un­der­rates their like­li­hood of suc­cess. Why ap­ply­ing is worth­while.

  Whether CE achieves its goals doesn’t matter to me—whether a) CE is a more cost effective donation opportunity than others or b) they’re the most impactful career step in expected value—those are the decision centric questions that matter

• Pseudonym101 6 Nov 2022 9:04 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Minh Nguyen’s comment on: CE: Who un­der­rates their like­li­hood of suc­cess. Why ap­ply­ing is worth­while.

  To add context, the significance of the point on career capital, is that building broad career capital was the hand wavy advice the community ala 80,000 hours would give people. Not sure if they do now

Pseudonym101′s Quick takes

[Question] Could we do more for en­glish speak­ing Afri­can coun­tries?

• Pseudonym101 5 Nov 2022 1:10 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 3

  in reply to: plex’s comment on: All AGI Safety ques­tions wel­come (es­pe­cially ba­sic ones) [~monthly thread]

  But people are already dying—no mights required, why not focus on more immediate problems like global health and development

• Pseudonym101 5 Nov 2022 1:04 UTC

  19 points

  1 ∶ 1

  on: CE: Who un­der­rates their like­li­hood of suc­cess. Why ap­ply­ing is worth­while.

  I reached out to one CE incubated charity founder on their experience to inform my decision on whether to apply. They were critical of their experience with CE and I haven’t seen negative feedback about the program from past founders shared anywhere which is not the standard I expect from explicit EA organisation. I would like to see more reporting on the distribution of outcomes for those accepted into the program, from funding received to their perception of the program itself.

  Because of the above, and that it requires a 2 month initial commitment with no guaranteed future, for which the opportunity cost for someone building career capital or in full time employment is high, I have not applied.

  Finally, the application process is rather rigid and does not seem open to outliers, neurodiverse applicants (relative to those who apply) who might not fit your mold but might otherwise be good founders.

  Interested in your thoughts.

• Pseudonym101 2 Nov 2022 4:09 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: All AGI Safety ques­tions wel­come (es­pe­cially ba­sic ones) [~monthly thread]

  Won’t other people take care of this—why should I additionally care?