akash

Karma: 326

akash 30 Mar 2024 23:12 UTC
68 points
17 ∶ 0
on: akash’s Quick takes
David Nash’s Monthly Overload of Effective Altruism seems highly underrated, and you should most probably give it a follow.
I don’t think any other newsletter captures and highlights EA’s cause-neutral impartial beneficence better than the Monthly Overload of EA. For example, this month’s newsletter has updates about Conferences, Virtual Events, Meta-EA, Effective Giving, Global Health and Development, Careers, Animal Welfare, Organization updates, Grants, Biosecurity, Emissions & CO2 Removal, Environment, AI Safety, AI Governance, AI in China, Improving Institutions, Progress, Innovation & Metascience, Longtermism, Forecasting, Miscellaneous causes and links, Stories & EA Around the World, Good News, and more. Compiling all this must be hard work!
Until September 2022, the monthly overloads were also posted on the Forum and received higher engagement than the Substack. I find the posts super informative, so I am giving the newsletter a shout-out and putting it back on everyone’s radar!

akash 20 Jul 2023 0:16 UTC
37 points
12 ∶ 2
on: Effective Altruism and the strategic ambiguity of ‘doing good’
I skimmed through the article; thanks for sharing!
Some quick thoughts:
community-members are fully aware that EA is not actually an open-ended question but a set of conclusions and specific cause areas
- The cited evidence here is one user claiming this is the case; I think they are wrong. For example, if there were a dental hygiene intervention that could help, let’s say, a hundred million individuals and government / other philanthropic aid were not addressing this, I would expect a CE-incubated charity to jump on it immediately.
  - There are other places where the author makes what I would consider sweeping generalizations or erroneous inferences. For instance:
    ″...given the high level of control leading organizations like the Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA) exercise over how EA is presented to outsiders” — The evidence cited here is mostly all the guides that CEA has made, but I don’t see how this translates to “high level of control.” EAs and EA organizations don’t have to adhere to what CEA suggests.
    “The general consensus seems to be that re-emphasizing a norm of donating to global poverty and animal welfare charities provides reputational benefits...” — upvotes to a comment ≠ general consensus.
- Table 1, especially the Cause neutrality section, seems to wedge a line where one doesn’t exist.
- The author acknowledges in the Methodology section that they didn’t participate in EA events or groups and mainly used internet forums to guide their qualitative study. I think this is the critical drawback of this study. Some of the most exciting things happen in EA groups and conferences, and I think the conclusion presented would be vastly different if the qualitative study included this data point.
- I don’t know what convinces the article’s author to imply that there is some highly coordinated approach to funnel people into the “real parts of EA.” If this is true (and my tongue-in-cheek remark here), I would suggest these core people not spend>50% of the money on global health as there could be cheaper ways of maintaining this supposed illusion.
  
  Overall, I like the background research done by the author, but I think the author’s takeaways are inaccurate and seem too forced. At least to me, the conclusion is reminiscent of the discourse around conspiracies such as the deep state or the “plandemic,” where there is always a secret group, a “they,” advancing their agenda while puppeteering tens of thousands of others.
  
  Much more straightforward explanations exist, which aren’t entertained in this study.
  
  EA is more centralized than most other movements, and it would be ideal to have several big donors with different priorities and worldviews. However, EA is also more functionally diverse and consists of some ten thousand folks (and growing), each of whom is a stakeholder in this endeavor and will collectively define the movement’s future.

akash 31 Mar 2023 19:35 UTC
28 points
13 ∶ 4
on: My updates after FTX
...for example, I think we should be less welcoming to proudly self-identified utilitarians, since they’re more likely to have these traits.
Ouch. Could you elaborate more on this and back this up more? The statement makes it sound like an obvious fact, and I don’t see why this would be true.

akash 4 Aug 2023 6:41 UTC
24 points
8 ∶ 3
on: University EA Groups Need Fixing
First, I am sorry to hear about your experience. I am sympathetic to the idea that a high level of deference and lack of rigorous thinking is likely rampant amongst the university EA crowd, and I hope this is remedied. That said, I strongly disagree with your takeaways about funding and have some other reflections as well:
- “Being paid to run a college club is weird. All other college students volunteer to run their clubs.”
  
  This seems incorrect. I used to feel this way, but I changed my mind because I noticed that every “serious” club (i.e., any club wanting to achieve its goals reliably) on my campus pays students or hires paid interns. For instance, my university has a well-established environmental science ecosystem, and at least two of the associated clubs are supported via some university funding mechanism (this is now so advanced that they also do grantmaking for student projects ranging from a couple thousand to a max of $100,000). I can also think of a few larger Christian groups on campus which do the same. Some computer science/data-related clubs also do this, but I might be wrong.
  
  Most college clubs are indeed run on a volunteer basis. But most are run quite casually. There is nothing wrong with this; most of them are hobby-based clubs where students simply want to create a socially welcoming atmosphere for any who might be interested. They don’t have weekly discussions, TA-like facilitation, socials/retreats, or, in some cases, hosting research/internship programs. In this way, EA clubs are different because they aren’t trying to be the “let’s get together and have fun” club. I almost see university EA clubs as a prototype non-profit or a so-so-funded university department trying to run a few courses.
  
  In passing I should also mention that it is far more common for clubs to get funding for hosting events, outreach, buying materials, etc. My guess is that in these cases if more funding were available, then students running those clubs would also get stipends.
- “Getting paid to organize did not make me take my role more seriously, and I suspect that other organizers did not take their roles much more seriously because of being paid.”
  
  My experience has been the opposite of yours. Before getting paid, organizing felt like a distraction from more important things; there was always this rush to wrap up tasks; I enjoyed organizing but always felt somewhat guilty for spending time on it. These feelings vanished after getting funded. I (at least) doubled the amount of time I spent on the club, got more exposed to EA, got more organized with the meetings/deadlines, and I feel that I have a sense of responsibility for running this project the best I can.
- Turn the University Group Organizer Fellowship into a need-based fellowship.
  
  I am uncertain about this. I think a better and simpler heuristic is that if people are working diligently for x hours a week, then they should be funded for their labor.
- “If the University Group Organizer Fellowship exit survey indicates that funding was somewhat helpful in increasing people’s commitment to quality community building, then reduce funding...”
  
  I agree with this. Funding being given out could be somewhat reduced and I feel it would be equally as impactful as it is now, but I am keen to see the results of the survey.
- “I am very concerned with just how little cause prioritization seems to be happening at my university group.”
  
  At least for university groups, maybe this is the wrong thing to be concerned about. It would be better if students could do rigorous cause-prioritization, but I think for most, this would be quite challenging, if not virtually impossible.
  
  The way I see it, most university students are still in the formative stages of figuring out what they believe in and their reasons for doing so. Almost all are in the active process of developing their identity and goals. Some have certain behavioral traits that prevent them from exploring all options (think of the shy person who later went on to become a communicator of some sort). All this is sometimes exacerbated by mental health problems or practical concerns (familial duties, the need to be financially stable, etc.).
  
  Expecting folks from this age group to perform cause prioritization is a high bar. I am sure some can do it, but I wouldn’t have been able to. Instead, I think it’d be better if university EA groups helped their members understand how to make the best possible bet at the moment to have a pathway to impact. For instance, I hope that most students who go through the fellowship:
  — Develop better ways of thinking and forming opinions
  — Be more open-minded / have a broad sphere of concern
  — Take ideas seriously and act on them (usually by building career capital)
  — Play the long game of having a high-impact career
  
  Now, this likely doesn’t happen to the best possible degree. But I think that all this and more, in combination, would help most in refining their cause prioritization over the years and setting themselves up to have a rewarding and impactful career.
  
  Maybe this is what you meant when you were expressing your concerns, in which case, sorry for the TED talk and I wholeheartedly agree.

Tiny humans: the most promising new cause candidate?

akash2 Apr 2024 8:46 UTC

22 points

6 comments4 min readEA link

akash 11 Aug 2023 18:21 UTC
19 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Madhav Malhotra’s comment on: University EA Groups Need Fixing
...we’re not hosting any discussions where a group organiser could convince people to work on AI safety over all else.
I feel it is important to mention that this isn’t supposed to happen during introductory fellowship discussions. CEA and other group organizers have compiled recommendations for facilitators (here is one, for example), and all the ones I have read quite clearly state that the role of the facilitator is to help guide the conversation, not overly opine or convince participants to believe in x over y.

akash 22 Feb 2023 1:26 UTC
19 points
5 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ben_West’s comment on: EU Food Agency Recommends Banning Cages
+1 to this. Also, I think it would be great to compile a list of career wins. It’s easy to find data on donations and their actual/expected impact, but not so easy to find examples like “Person A got involved in career or initiative x, spend t years working on it, and then the outcome was z.”

akash 11 Aug 2023 6:40 UTC
16 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Zane’s comment on: University EA Groups Need Fixing
...seeing that the Columbia EA club pays its executives so much...
To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think Columbia EA gives out salaries to their “executives.” University group organizers who meet specific requirements (for instance, time invested per week) can independently apply for funding and have to undergo an application and interview process. So, the dynamics you describe in the beginning would be somewhat different because of self-selection effects; there isn’t a bulletin board or a LinkedIn post where these positions are advertised. I say somewhat because I can imagine a situation where a solely money-driven individual gets highly engaged in the club, learns about the Group Organizer Fellowship, applies, and manages to secure funding. However, I don’t expect this to be that likely.
...you are constantly being nudged by your corrupted hardware to justify spending money on luxuries and conveniences.
For group funding, at least, there are strict requirements for what money can and cannot be spent on. This is true for most university EA clubs unless they have an independent funding source.

All that said, I agree that “notably large amount[s] of money” for university organizers is not ideal.

akash 11 Nov 2023 17:27 UTC
10 points
5 ∶ 2
in reply to: Elizabeth’s comment on: Elizabeth’s Quick takes
I like the LW emoji palette, but it is too much. Reading forum posts and parsing through comments can be mentally taxing. I don’t want to spend additional effort going through a list of forty-something emojis and buttons to react to something, especially comments. I am often pressed for time, so almost always I would avoid the LW emoji palette entirely. Maybe a few other important reactions can be added instead of all of them? Or maybe there could be a setting which allows people to choose if they want to see a “condensed” or “extended” emoji palette? Either way, just my two cents.

akash 31 Mar 2023 20:43 UTC
10 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Benjamin_Todd’s comment on: My updates after FTX
It’s maybe worth clarifying that I’m most concerned about people who a combination of high-confidence in utilitarianism and a lack of qualms about putting it into practice.
Thank you, that makes more sense + I largely agree.
However, I also wonder if all this could be better gauged by watching out for key psychological traits/features instead of probing someone’s ethical view. For instance, a person low in openness showing high-risk behavior who happens to be a deontologist could cause as much trouble as a naive utilitarian optimizer. In either case, it would be the high-risk behavior that would potentially cause problems rather than how they ethically make decisions.

akash 11 Oct 2023 5:58 UTC
9 points
2 ∶ 0
on: Thoughts on Kenan Malik’s recent EA Article
I see the same recycled and often wrong impressions of EA far too often, so I appreciate you taking the time and doing this!

akash 21 Jul 2023 18:04 UTC
9 points
11 ∶ 2
on: FTX Foundation wanted to buy the nation of Nauru to save EAs’ lives
...whether this is a healthy line of thinking...
Absolutely not healthy!
...and something we’re glad the public knows about us now.
Leave the public! This is something I didn’t know about “us” until now (and plausibly, 99% of the EA community didn’t either).
The memo is bad because would-have-been top funders were floating the idea of preferentially helping the in-group (and helping is an understatement here). At the same time, I expect plenty of guilt-by-association critiques to spur out of this that will place blame on the entire community :(

akash 5 Apr 2023 16:14 UTC
8 points
2 ∶ 3
in reply to: John G. Halstead’s comment on: My updates after FTX
I downvoted and want to explain my reasoning briefly: the conclusions presented are too strong, and the justifications don’t necessarily support them.
We simply don’t have enough experience or data points to say what the “central problem” in a utilitarian community will be. The one study cited seems suggestive at best. People on the spectrum are, well, on a spectrum, and so is their behavior; how they react will not be as monolithic as suggested.
All that being said, I softly agree with the conclusion (because I think this would be true for any community).
All of this suggests that, as you recommend, in communities with lots of consequentialists, there needs to be very large emphasis on virtues and common sense norms.

akash 2 Apr 2024 0:13 UTC
7 points
2 ∶ 0
on: Announcement on the Future of EA NYC’s Dim Sum Restaurant
I was skeptical, and then I saw the menu.
If Dustin wants to further diversify his investment portfolio, this might be a great choice.

akash 11 Oct 2023 6:06 UTC
6 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: JamesN’s comment on: Thoughts on Kenan Malik’s recent EA Article
The closest would be CEA’s communication team, but as you point out: “it’s not desirable to have a big comms. function that speaks for EA and makes the community more formal than it is.”

I think it’d be challenging (and not in good taste) for CEA to craft responses on behalf of the entire EA community; it is better if individual EAs critique articles which they think misrepresents ideas within the movement.

akash 22 Jul 2023 20:27 UTC
6 points
4 ∶ 0
in reply to: Garrison’s comment on: FTX Foundation wanted to buy the nation of Nauru to save EAs’ lives
About point 4: While commenting, I presumed the controversial bit was “let’s build bunkers only for EAs.” Reading other comments, however, it seems that maybe I misunderstood something because there is more focus on the “let’s build bunkers” part and not as much on the latter.

The idea of making bunkers is somewhat out there but not uncommon; governments have done it nationally at least once, and an active group of preppers do it now. In the event of a catastrophe, I would appreciate having access to a bunker, and I am sure so would others.

Making it only for EAs implies (the utterly wrong idea) that in the event of a catastrophe, EAs are somehow more valuable and worthy of saving than non-EAs. This goes against some core ideas that we aim to cultivate.

akash 6 Aug 2023 19:24 UTC
5 points
0 ∶ 2
in reply to: guneyturker’s comment on: University EA Groups Need Fixing
I disagree-voted and briefly wanted to explain why.
1. “some people may want to do good as much as possible but don’t buy longtermism. We might lose these people who could do amazing good.”
  
  I agree that University groups should feel welcoming to those interested in non-longtermist causes, but it is perfectly possible to create this atmosphere without nixing key parts of the syllabus. I don’t think the syllabus has much to do with creating this atmosphere. Rockwell and freedomandutility (and others) have listed some great points on this, and I think the conversations you have (and how you have them) and the opportunities you share with your group could help folks be more cause-neutral.
  
  One idea I liked was the “local expert” model where you have members deeply exploring various cause areas. When there is a new member interested in cause X, you can simply redirect them to the member who has studied it or done internships related to that cause. If you have different “experts” spanning different areas, this could help maintain a broad range of interests in the club and feel welcoming to a broader range of newcomers.
2. “And if we give this content of weirdness plus the “most important century” narrative to the wanna-be EAs we might lose people who could be EA if they had encountered the ideas with a time for digestion.”
  
  I think assumes that people won’t be put off by the weirdness by, let’s say, week 1 or week 3. I could see situations where people would find caring about animals weirder than caring about future humans. Or both of these weirder than pandemic prevention or global poverty reduction. I don’t know what the solution is, except reminding people to be open-minded + critical as they go through the reading, and cultivating an environment where people understand that they don’t have to agree with everything to be a part of the club.
3. Host of other reasons that I will quickly mention:
  1. I don’t think those three weeks of the syllabus you mention disproportionately represent a single framework: One can care about x-risk without caring about longtermism or vice-versa or both. There are other non-AI x-risks and longtermist causes that folks might be interested in, so I don’t think it is there just to generate more interest in AI Safety.
    
    Internally, we (group organizers at my university) did feel the AI week was a bit much, so we made the career-related readings on AI optional. The logic was that people should learn about, for instance, why AI alignment could be hard with modern deep learning, but they don’t need to read the 80K career profile on Safety if they don’t want to. We added readings on s-risks, and are considering adding pieces on AI welfare (undecided right now).
  2. It is more honest to have those readings in the introductory syllabus: New members could be weirded out to see x-risk/longtermist/AI jobs on 80K or the EA Opportunity board and question why those topics weren’t introduced in the Introductory Program.
  3. I was also primarily interested in animal advocacy prior to EA, and now I am interested in a broader range of issues while maintaining (and refining) my interest in animal advocacy. I am now also disinterested in some causes I initially thought were as important. I think having an introductory syllabus with a broad range of ideas is important for such cross-pollination/updating and a more robust career planning process down the line.
  4. Anecdote: One of the comments that comes up in our group sometimes is that we focus too much on charities as a way of doing good (the first few weeks on cost-effectiveness, global health, donations, etc.). So, having a week on x-risk and sharing the message that “hey, you can also work for the government, help shape policy on bio-risks, and have a huge impact” is an important one not to leave out.

akash 20 Apr 2023 17:09 UTC
5 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Inside The Minds Of ADHD
The hallmark experiences of undiagnosed ADHD seem to be saying “I just need to try harder” over and over for years, or kicking yourself for intending to start work and then not getting much done...
Extremely relatable.
Thank you very much for writing this. I am in the process of getting a diagnosis, and this helped me overcome some of the totally made-up mental barriers regarding ADHD medication.

akash 19 Aug 2023 2:17 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Personal Reflections on Longtermism
Thank you for sharing your impressions! Some comments and questions:
1. Does longtermist institutional reform count as systemic change?
  1. Meta-question: What is systemic change? How do you define it?
    
    I think this a term that has become memetically dominant in the Left and has lost its meaning because it is used far too often and casually. So, now whenever people mention that term, I am not quite sure if I know what they mean by it.
2. I think one speculative reason why longtermist circles don’t discuss concerns like the ones you raise is because of a somewhat prevalent belief that the post-scarcity utopia will happen soon after AGI. In a nutshell: AGI will happen very soon, the creation of AGI will lead to ASI (or AGI+) fairly quickly, and if this whatchamacallit is sufficiently aligned, it will solve all our problems.
  
  Even if an individual somewhat subscribed to this notion, they may not think about most present concerns as they would all seem trivial. After all, they will soon be “solved” in the post-AGI world.^[1]
1. ^
  I don’t think professional longtermist organizations operate on this belief or even entertain it.

akash 13 May 2023 17:54 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: 🏜️ EA is in Albuquerque!
Hello from another group organizer in the Southwest! We are in Tucson AZ, just a six hours drive away. Hopefully, someday in the not-so-far future, organizing a southwestern meetup / retreat / something would be feasible and super cool!

akash

Tiny hu­mans: the most promis­ing new cause can­di­date?

Tiny humans: the most promising new cause candidate?