Saul Munn

Karma: 465

Saul Munn 21 Jul 2022 23:13 UTC
36 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Leaning into EA Disillusionment
I’d say I’m a newcomer to EA. I’d also say I’m in Phase 1. In other words, I’d say I’m an infatuated newcomer reading a post meant to warn newcomers against infatuation.
I agree with Helen’s overall argument, and I think it applies to most ideologies, movements, passions, and ideas. Overcommitment leads to burnout and backlash and eventual disillusionment — people shouldn’t become overly infatuated with anything.
Figuring out gaps, mistakes, subtle wrongnesses, etc. is so helpful! That’s what we most desperately need as a community! And it will often begin with a feeling of something being subtly off…
I have a feeling of something being subtly off, and the thing that feels wrong is the tone of this post.
Before I clarify my critique, I want to strongly affirm my agreement with Helen’s thesis and thank her (as well as those she thanks) for writing and editing this post.
This post feels condescending. I feel like a child being instructed on how to digest an ideology that I’m told is far too complicated for little me to explore on my own. I know that wasn’t at all Helen’s purpose; I know she had entirely good intentions. However, the post feels like it was written and edited exclusively by people who are intimately related to the EA movement, and never given to an inexperienced layman to digest.
I’m merely following Helen’s own instructions — I felt something subtly off, and I’m pointing it out. I hope those reading my comment realize that my goal is not to merely critique Helen, but also to inform future writers of future posts to keep in mind the importance of including the voices of the newcomers in posts directed at those newcomers.
-Munn

Saul Munn 4 Aug 2022 21:34 UTC
5 points
0 ∶ 0
on: 2022 AI expert survey results
Support for AI safety research is up: 69% of respondents believe society should prioritize AI safety research “more” or “much more” than it is currently prioritized, up from 49% in 2016.
Heightened support for research in AI safety by AI researchers themselves seems like a requisite step for providing more resources to AI safety researchers. I’m encouraged that AI researchers are so much more favorable toward AI safety research now than in 2016, (a) because it means AI safety research is more likely to be as important as the EA community claims it is, and (b) because more pressure from academia is necessary (perhaps not sufficient, but necessary) to increase public support of AI safety research.
TL;DR: if AI researchers believe AI safety research is important, then it probably is. Also, for AI safety research to be better supported by the public, it’s probably necessary for AI researchers to want it to have more support.
- Munn

Saul Munn 4 Aug 2022 22:40 UTC
15 points
0 ∶ 0
on: EA is Insufficiently Value Neutral in Practice
I like the post. Well-written and well-reasoned. Unfortunately, I don’t agree — not at all.
A (hopefully) useful example, inspired by Worley’s thoughts, my mother, and Richard’s stinging question, respectively. Look at the following causes:
- X-risk Prevention
- Susan G. Komen Foundation
- The Nazi Party
All three of the above would happily accept donations. Those who donate only to the first would probably view the values of the second cause as merely different from their own values, but they’d probably view the values of the third cause as opposing their own set of values.
Someone who donates to x-risk prevention might think that breast cancer awareness isn’t a very cost-effective form of charity. Someone who values breast cancer awareness might think that extinction from artificial intelligence is absurd. They wouldn’t mind the other “wasting their money” on x-risk prevention/breast cancer awareness — but both would (hopefully) find that the values of the Nazi Party are in direct opposition to their own values, not merely adjacently different.
The dogma that “one should fulfill the values one holds as effectively as possible” ignores the fundamental question: what values should one hold? Since ethics isn’t a completed field, EA sticks to — and should stick to — things that are almost unquestionably good: animals shouldn’t suffer, humanity shouldn’t go extinct, people shouldn’t have to die from malaria, etc. Not too many philosophers question the ethical value of preventing extinction or animal suffering. Benatar might be one of the few who disagrees, but even he would still probably say that relieving an animal’s pain is a good thing.
TL;DR: Doing something bad effectively… is still bad. In fact, it’s not just bad; it’s worse bad. I’d rather the Nazi Party was an ineffective mess of an institution than a data-driven, streamlined organization. This post seems to emphasize the E and ignore the A.

Saul Munn 4 Aug 2022 23:08 UTC
14 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Gordon Seidoh Worley’s comment on: EA is Insufficiently Value Neutral in Practice
I disagree with Nazism, but to be intellectually consistent I have to accept that even beliefs about what is good that I find personally unpalatable deserve consideration.
A) No — to be intellectually consistent, you wouldn’t merely have to claim that Nazism deserves consideration. You’d have to actively support an anti-Semitic person donating to the Nazi Party and ensuring that it functions as efficiently as possible to eradicate Jewish people.^[1] Correct me if I’m wrong, but your post didn’t seem to stop at wanting just a discussion of values — it pushed for action to increase the effectiveness of whatever values someone else held, even if those values are counter to your own.
B) Why do you think beliefs you find personally unpalatable deserve consideration — or, at least, how much consideration is necessary? Was the Holocaust insufficient consideration of the ideals of Nazism? Do you believe we should leave the Final Solution on the table as a way of pursuing ethical good in the world? These aren’t “gotcha” questions — given that you responded “yes” to Richard’s incisive question, I’d legitimately like to see how far your intellectual consistency will take you.
How do you know what is good and evil?
Agreed. This is a key question, and I think Richard avoids this thorny problem in his comment. However, the fact that the field of ethics hasn’t come to a conclusion over which system of values we should hold doesn’t implicate a free-for-all. We may not (yet?) know what is objectively good and evil, or even if ethics are objective or exist in the first place, but we can still aim for the good and away from the bad.
I’m excited to hear out your answer — you have a lot of interesting takes, and you have an easy-to-follow writing style.
1. ^
  I’m Jewish. I’m a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My father is a Holocaust scholar. I’m attending a conference on the Holocaust tomorrow. I’m not offended by the employment of the Nazi Party as an example, but if someone else is, I’d be happy to edit this post and change the example to something else — either shoot me a direct message or simply reply to this chain.

Saul Munn 5 Aug 2022 20:52 UTC
7 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Gordon Seidoh Worley’s comment on: EA is Insufficiently Value Neutral in Practice
?

Maybe the formatting of your comment cut off the later portions. It seems like your response to my comment only included a discussion of my end note. To be clear, my end note was meant as merely a side-conversation, only tangentially related to the main body of the comment.

I’ll be generous in assuming that it was merely a formatting error — I wouldn’t hope to assume that you ignored the main points of my comment in favor of writing only about my relatively unimportant end note.

I await your response to the content of my comment! :)

Saul Munn 14 Aug 2022 9:19 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: SiobhanB’s comment on: Animal rights initiative with far-reaching consequences and possibly high chance of success
Donated CHF 15. Thank you Martin and Siobhan for pointing this out! GOOD LUCK!!!

Saul Munn 24 Dec 2022 6:13 UTC
8 points
3 ∶ 1
in reply to: ThomasW’s comment on: EAGx application community norms we’d like to see
Even better — there aren’t too many EAGx’s per year. Why not set up a prediction market or hold a forecasting platform question?
“What percentage of those who’ve registered for tickets at EAGx____ will not attend?”
Let people bet on the question, and use that estimate as the best-guess as to how many people will be no-shows.

Saul Munn 23 Mar 2023 3:31 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Anki with Uncertainty: Turn any flashcard deck into a calibration training tool
This looks awesome, Adam! I’m adding it to all of my decks :)

Saul Munn 3 May 2023 19:11 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Sam Glover’s comment on: Sam Glover’s Shortform
I read it, and I think it’s worth it to post on the EA forum. FWIW, it convinced me to apply.
(also, I’m a big fan of your blog! highlight of the day is when i get the notification from substack that says you posted!)

Saul Munn 5 May 2023 5:39 UTC
17 points
3 ∶ 0
on: Introducing Animal Policy International
This looks awesome! Congrats on everything :D
I think there are a few ways I can help:
NZ: You’ve probably already thought of this, but you should reach out to New Zealand EA! I know a couple of people in the NZ EA community — DM me if you’d like to be put in touch.
LAW: You could also reach out to the Legal Priorities Project for connections with the EA & Law community. SLEA and HLSEA are two other options.
OPEN QUESTIONS: A lot of your “Open Questions” seem like (with a little tweaking) pretty good questions for forecasting, like the type on Metaculus or INFER. At a minimum, you could post a few markets on Manifold, but you could also go bigger and get decision-relevant info from other platforms. Let me know if you want more help with this — forecasting as a field can seem a lot more intimidating than it actually is!
OTHER/EVERYTHING: You can/should post on the EA Groups Slack and the EA Anywhere Slack (if appropriate). They each have channel(s) dedicated to “opportunities” or “careers” or “resources” etc.
Hope I could help! Let me know if there’s anything else I can help with — can’t wait to see y’all at EAG London :)
~ Saul Munn

Saul Munn 10 May 2023 5:25 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Why Not EA? [paper draft]
Hey Richard!
Big fan of Good Thoughts :)
I’d love to edit/help! Is there a rough date that you’d want edits by?
~ Saul Munn

Saul Munn 16 May 2023 23:18 UTC
11 points
3 ∶ 0
on: Probably Good launches improved website & 1-on-1 advising
This seems awesome!
How does Probably Good differentiate itself from 80k hours? I’d love to know your competitive advantage :)
~ Saul

Saul Munn 18 May 2023 3:41 UTC
4 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: omernevo’s comment on: Probably Good launches improved website & 1-on-1 advising
Great answer! Thank you :)

Saul Munn 19 May 2023 22:49 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: vandemonian’s comment on: OPTIC [Forecasting Comp] — Pilot Postmortem
thank you! :)

Saul Munn 20 May 2023 1:58 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jason’s comment on: OPTIC [Forecasting Comp] — Pilot Postmortem
great points!
agreed, quick feedback loops are vital for good engagement + learning. we couldn’t figure out a good way to do it for the pilot, but this is definitely something we’re interested in building out for the next competition.
also, fermi estimation is a great idea — jane street sometimes runs an (unaffiliated) estimathon, but it would be cool to build in an estimation round, or something along those lines. do you have any other ideas for quickly-resolving rounds?
thanks for your thoughts!
~ saul

Saul Munn 23 May 2023 14:36 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: dschwarz’s comment on: OPTIC [Forecasting Comp] — Pilot Postmortem
yeah, i agree — i think we’ll probably rely more heavily on questions in that style for the next iteration of OPTIC. i don’t think we relied enough on existing questions/tournaments (see here).

Saul Munn 23 May 2023 14:39 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: dschwarz’s comment on: OPTIC [Forecasting Comp] — Pilot Postmortem
thanks for the kind words — and thanks for helping OPTIC become a reality! :)

Saul Munn 6 Jun 2023 1:22 UTC
24 points
1 ∶ 0
on: I made a news site based on prediction markets
(written on my phone, apologies for the poor formatting and lack of hyperlinks!)

this is AWESOME! so glad i’m seeing this become a reality :D

i think one of the central things you might work on is developing out rationales. a number only gets ppl so far — understanding WHY the market is at a certain percentage is also super helpful. this seems like one of the central aspects of what makes forecasting useful. it also seems like a great way to monetize forecasting as a skill, which you mentioned is one of your goals.

[edit: to clarify, i’m proposing that you could hire forecasters to write reports/rationales on specific topics. forecasters get paid for their skills, you get longer-form content, consumers get actionable, context-laden info > a single number. in terms of figuring out where the money’s coming from…]

some ideas for funding:
- seems like you’re giving the prediction market companies free advertising??? maybe ask them to pay or smth…
- LTFF
- ads (i don’t recommend)
- paid subscription option, maybe/especially to get the rationales or something
- sponsorships — might function similar to ads, except partnering with specific companies who’re interested in capturing the attention of ppl who read BRT. for example, quant finance. dm me if you want more help/info on this one.
- ask for donations from readers
- uhh idk i ran out of ideas ngl
again, i think this is really really cool and i’m in full support! :)

Tim Cook was asked about extinction risks from AI

Saul Munn6 Jun 2023 18:46 UTC

8 points

1 comment1 min readEA link

Saul Munn 7 Jun 2023 17:12 UTC
1 point
2 ∶ 0
on: revolutionary ideas in software (engineering)
How is this related to EA?

Saul Munn

Tim Cook was asked about ex­tinc­tion risks from AI

Tim Cook was asked about extinction risks from AI