Thanks again! I guess I’m just trying to understand why these metrics are important or how they are important. Why does it matter how many people in the US have heard of EA or how they feel about it? What is the underlying question the survey and its year over-end fellows are trying to get at? Eg, is it trying to measure how well CEA is performing in terms of whether its programs are making a difference in the populace?
Throwaway81
Karma: 38
The reader can take it or leave it given these facts, but imo it serves as a data point that someone from US Policy is pointing to this real thing.
Very detailed and thorough response, thank you!
Last question if you have time: what questions was this survey trying to answer?
If you are trying to get a US policy job than probably no, but it also depends on the section of US policy
What questions was this survey trying to answer? I kind of feel like the most important version of a survey like this would be certain subsets of people (eg, tech, policy, animal welfare).
Also why didn’t you call out that the more people know what EA is, the less they seem to like it? Or was that difference not statistically significant?
(“Sentiment towards EA among those who had heard of it was positive (51% positive vs. 38% negative among those stringently aware, and 70% positive, vs. 22% negative among those permissively aware).”
That’s just completely false. Sorry I can’t say more.
I can try to answer 3 for Marcus. Imagine that AI policy is a soccer game for professional soccer players. You’ve put in a lot of practice, know the rules, and know how to work well with your teammates. You’re scoring some goals.
Then someone from an interim/pick-up game league who is just learning to play soccer comes along and tried to be on the team, or—in this case is not even aware of the team? If we let them on the team, not only do we look bad to the other team, but since policy is a team sport, they drive our overall impact down because it’s kind of dead weight that we now have to try to guard against for things they do that they think are helpful but are not, depleting energy and resources better spent on getting goals.
Ah, formerly CE. No, I think that formerly CE is not well suited for US Policy-focused spinouts. There aren’t any people on staff that can advise on that well (I’ve been involved in a couple of policy consultation projects for that and it seemed that the advisors just had no grasp regarding what was going on in US policy/advocacy). I think their classic charities are good though!
I’m not familiar with that program, sorry.
Strong +1 on #3
They don’t have any experience and no people with experience driving the ship, where experience and relationships in DC are extremely important. They are meeting with offices, yes, but it’s not clear that they are meeting with the right offices or the right staffers. It’s likely that they are actually not cost-effective because the money could probably be better spent on two highly competent and experienced/plugged in people rather than a bunch of junior people in terms of ROI.
Why is the salary so large?
shrug I think it would be helpful to me, and like I said the reader can take it or leave it. Thems the breaks. I think commenting from a throwaway account providing the data and letting the reader decide is better than not commenting and not providing data