SeanEngelhart

• SeanEngelhart 20 Jul 2022 0:38 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Simon Holm’s comment on: In­ves­ti­gat­ing Cause Areas vs. Jump­ing In

  Good point! I actually had that same misunderstanding I think too!

• SeanEngelhart 25 Jun 2022 18:47 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Simon Holm’s comment on: In­ves­ti­gat­ing Cause Areas vs. Jump­ing In

  Sorry for the incredibly late response! I think that all makes sense—thanks for sharing!

  I think it also ends up depending a lot on one’s particular circumstances: do you have a unique /​ timely opportunity to “jump in”? Do you have a clear path forward (i.e. options that you even could “jump into”)? How uncertain do you feel about which path is right for you and how much would you have to reduce your uncertainty to feel satisfied?

  It’s funny you mention that “it is easy to come to the conclusion that one should become a full-time philosopher or global priorities researcher to straighten these uncertainties out”—I’ve recently been thinking that this could actually be a good move in my particular circumstance. Global priorities research seems like a potentially very high impact area in itself. On top of that, one could use that time to become more informed about other cause areas that might be even higher impact for them. However, I’m not sure how useful this “scouting” aspect /​ approach would be. E.g. some of the areas I think could be higher impact for me than GPR are ones that I’m already pretty well-aware of. But I guess it could still be an opportunity to learn more about those areas, depending on what the research (done for GPR) would entail.

• SeanEngelhart 15 Jun 2022 1:47 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: sean­sre’s Shortform

  Hey all!

  Here’s a short page on vegan nutrition for anyone trying to learn more about it /​ get into veganism.

• SeanEngelhart 7 May 2022 23:00 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Ap­ply to the sec­ond ML for Align­ment Boot­camp (MLAB 2) in Berkeley [Aug 15 - Fri Sept 2]

  If someone doesn’t have much prior ML experience, can they still be a TA, assuming they have a month to dedicate to learning the curriculum before the program starts?

  If yes, would the TA’s learning during that month be self-guided? Or would it take place in a structure/​environment similar to the one the students will experience?

• SeanEngelhart 7 May 2022 22:47 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Ap­ply to the sec­ond ML for Align­ment Boot­camp (MLAB 2) in Berkeley [Aug 15 - Fri Sept 2]

  This sounds really exciting!

  I’m a bit unclear on the below point:

  I think that MLAB is a good use of time for many people who don’t plan to do technical alignment research long term but who intend to do theoretical alignment research or work on other things where being knowledgeable about ML techniques is useful.

  Do you mean you don’t think MLAB would be a good use of time for people who do “plan to do technical alignment research long term”?

[Question] In­ves­ti­gat­ing Cause Areas vs. Jump­ing In

• SeanEngelhart 11 Apr 2022 2:21 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: A vi­su­al­iza­tion of some orgs in the AI Safety Pipeline

  Thanks for this!

  Does “Learning the Basics” specifically mean learning AI Safety basics, or does this also include foundational AI/​ML (in general, not just safety) learning? I’m wondering because I’m curious if you mean that the things under “Learning the Basics” could be done with little/​no background in ML.

• SeanEngelhart 4 Apr 2022 22:11 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: John G. Halstead’s comment on: Aiming for the min­i­mum of self-care is dangerous

  When I first read this and some of the other comments, I think I was in an especially sensitive headspace for guilt /​ unhealthy self-pressure. Because of that & the way it affected me at the time, I want to mention for others in similar headspaces: Nate Soares’ Replacing Guilt series might be helpful (there’s also a podcast version). Also, if you feel like you need to talk to someone about this and/​or would like ideas for additional resources (not sure how many I have, but at least some) please feel free to direct message me.

• SeanEngelhart 22 Mar 2022 17:09 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Ap­ply for Red Team Challenge [May 7 - June 4]

  Do you have any examples of suggested ideas to red team? No worries if not - - just wanted to get a sense of what the suggested list will be like.

• SeanEngelhart 20 Mar 2022 12:03 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Ap­ply for Red Team Challenge [May 7 - June 4]

  This sounds awesome! Thank you for running it! Do you expect to have additional runs of this in the future?

• SeanEngelhart 14 Mar 2022 1:53 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Samotsvety Nu­clear Risk Fore­casts — March 2022

  Thanks so much for posting this! Do you plan to update the forecast here /​ elsewhere on the forum at all? If not, do you have any recommendations for places to see high quality, up-to-date forecasts on nuclear risk?

• SeanEngelhart 10 Mar 2022 3:30 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: UwU’s comment on: Nu­clear Pre­pared­ness Guide

  I’m curious about your thoughts on this: hypothetically, if I were to relocate now, do you see the duration of my stay in the lower risk area as being indefinitely long? It seems unclear to me what exact signals—other than pretty obvious ones like the war ending, which I’d guess are much less likely to happen soon—would be clear green lights to move back to my original location. I’m wondering because I’m trying to assess feasibility. For my situation, it feels like the longer I’m away, the higher the cost (not specifically monetary) of the relocation.

[Question] Is In­vest­ing Harm­ful?

• SeanEngelhart 16 Jun 2021 21:56 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: AidanGoth’s comment on: Weighted Pros /​ Cons as a Norm

  Sorry for my very slow response!

  Thanks—this is helpful! Also, I want to note for anyone else looking for the kind of source I mentioned, this 80K podcast with Spencer Greenberg is actually very helpful and relevant for the things described above. They even work through some examples together.

  (I had heard about the “Question of Evidence,” which I described above, from looking at a snippet of the podcast’s transcript, but hadn’t actually listened to the whole thing. Doing a full listen felt very worth it for the kind of info mentioned above.)

• SeanEngelhart 31 May 2021 20:24 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: How do other EAs keep them­selves mo­ti­vated?

  Hey Jonas! Good to “see” you! (If I remember right, we met at the EA Fellowship Weekend.) Here are some thoughts:

  • In addition to some of the things that have already been said (like reminding myself of the suffering in the world and trying to channel my sadness/​anger/​frustration/​etc. into action to help), I also find it valuable to remind myself that this is an iterative process of improvement. Ideally, I’ll continually get better at helping others for the rest of my life and continually improve my ideas about this topic. This feels especially helpful when I’m overwhelmed by the sheer number of difficult questions to answer and all the uncertainty that goes with them. I think this iterative mindset is particularly good for sustainability and longevity in our pursuit. This doesn’t mean we can sit back and let our future selves do all the work of course—I think it’s still important to actively avoid becoming complacent (again, even this point is a balance because I also don’t think it’s healthy or sustainable to be endlessly self-critical). But I do think it means that we should keep in mind that this is (ideally) a lifelong pursuit and that we can’t—and, if some of the ideas behind patient philanthropy are true, maybe shouldn’t—have all the answers or all the impact today.

  • If you can find things that are both valuable/​impactful and especially interesting to you, this can also be a great way to pull in another kind of motivation. If you can’t always feel emotionally driven to act altruistically, then you can pull in curiosity, desire to learn, etc. in those and other moments.

  • While cliche, I also think the idea of being “the change you want to see” is actually quite useful and profound (which is maybe why it’s a cliche). When I feel mad about others’ fancy and expensive houses, cars, and lifestyles in a world that contains vast amounts of preventable suffering and a seemingly endless list of pressing problems, it helps to remind myself that I can at least control my decisions about how to use my resources and aim to reduce suffering /​ increase well-being in the world. I can work to bring about the kind of world that I want to see. (Note: I’m not trying to claim that we can’t influence others’ (non-)altruistic actions with these last few sentences.)

  • I want to note that I think the judgment of others that I described above has had a negative impact on my mental health in my experience, so it seems useful for me (and maybe others who are similar) to find ways of managing this kind of judgment. If anyone feels interested in discussing this, please comment or reach out! I’d be happy to share some of my initial thoughts on potential methods for doing this.

  • I think community can be very motivating. If you’re able to find others in your life who are excited about EA ideas, this might be able to boost your motivation. I imagine it would also be very energizing if you’re able to introduce new people to EA and have them get really interested and excited about it. Here are some community-related links.

  • Here are some related links I found that might be useful (disclaimer: I haven’t read through all of these yet):

    • Sustaining an EA Lifestyle

    • Helen Toner: Sustainable Motivation

    • Nate Soares: Altruistic motivations

• SeanEngelhart 29 May 2021 19:35 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: AidanGoth’s comment on: Weighted Pros /​ Cons as a Norm

  Is there any chance you have an example of your last suggestion in practice (stating a prior, then intuitively updating it after each consideration)? No worries if not.

• SeanEngelhart 29 May 2021 12:42 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: AidanGoth’s comment on: Weighted Pros /​ Cons as a Norm

  Great point! I understand the high-level idea behind priors and updating, but I’m not very familiar with the details of Bayes factors and other Bayesian topics. A quick look at Wikipedia didn’t feel super helpful… I’m guessing you don’t mean formally applying the equations, but instead doing it in a more approximate or practical way? I’ve heard Spencer Greenberg’s description of the “Question of Evidence” (how likely would I be to see this evidence if my hypothesis is true, compared to if it’s false?). Are there similar quick, practical framings that could be applied for the purposes described in your comment? Do you know of any good, practical resources on Bayesian topics that would be sufficient for what you described?

Weighted Pros /​ Cons as a Norm

• SeanEngelhart 15 May 2021 15:09 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: What harm could AI safety do?

  [Main takeaway: to some degree, this might increase the expected value of making AI safety measures performant.]

  One I thought of:
  Consider the forces pushing for untethered, rapid, maximal AI development and those pushing for controlled, safe, possibly slower AI development. If something happens in the future such that the “safety forces” become much stronger than the “development forces”—this could be due to some AI accident that causes significant harm, generates a lot of public attention, and leads to regulations being imposed on the development of AI—this could make AI development slower or mean that AI doesn’t get as advanced as it otherwise would. I haven’t read too much on the case for economic growth improving welfare, but if those arguments are true and the above scenario significantly reduces economic growth, and thus, welfare, then this could be one avenue for harm.

  There are some caveats to this scenario:

  • If AI safety work goes really well, then it may not hinder AI development or performance. I’m not yet very knowledgeable on the field of AI safety, but from what I’ve heard, making AI safety measures performant is an area of active consideration (and possibly work) in the field. If development /​ performance isn’t hindered and economic growth is thus unaffected, then the above scenario isn’t cause for harm.

  • This scenario and line of reasoning rely on the harm from stunted economic growth outweighing the benefit of having safer AI. This is a very questionable assumption.

• SeanEngelhart 15 May 2021 1:33 UTC

  7 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: EA is a Ca­reer Endpoint

  This seems like quite solid advice to me and especially relevant in light of posts like this. It makes a lot of sense to try to “skill up” in areas that have lower barriers of entry (as long as they provide comparable or better career capital) and I like the idea that “you can go get somebody else to invest in your skilling-up process, then in a way, you’re diverting money and mentorship into EA.” This seems especially valuable since it both redirects resources of non-EA orgs that might’ve otherwise gone to skilling up people who aren’t altruistically-minded and frees up the resources of EA orgs that can now go towards developing other members of EA.