Toby Tremlett🔹

• Toby Tremlett🔹 25 Jul 2024 11:58 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Paul Retallick’s comment on: Peter Singer AMA (July 30th)

  Thanks Paul! Really helpful

• Toby Tremlett🔹 25 Jul 2024 10:44 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Paul Retallick’s comment on: Peter Singer AMA (July 30th)

  Interesting question! Do you have the longer quotation which explains “such”? I.e., how does he define these normative truths in the preceding paragraph/​ page?

Fo­rum up­date: User database, card view, and more (Jul 2024)

• Toby Tremlett🔹 24 Jul 2024 8:14 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: indrekk’s comment on: AMA: Beast Philan­thropy’s Dar­ren Margolias

  It’ll be up soon, we’ll post about it or update this post. Just needs to be trimmed etc. Stay tuned!

• Toby Tremlett🔹 24 Jul 2024 8:04 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Fai’s comment on: Peter Singer AMA (July 30th)

  Haha yes, thanks!

• Toby Tremlett🔹 22 Jul 2024 14:51 UTC

  10 points

  3 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Hauke Hillebrandt’s comment on: Peter Singer AMA (July 30th)

  Good Q- would you mind summarising the link? Singer won’t have much time to respond to the questions so it’d make it more likely that he could answer well :)

Peter Singer AMA (July 30th)

• Toby Tremlett🔹 9 Jul 2024 14:57 UTC

  67 points

  17 ∶ 0

  on: AMA: Beast Philan­thropy’s Dar­ren Margolias

  Do you think there is a trade-off between finding the best ways to help people and making the best videos? If so, how do you navigate it?
  
  PS- I thought this was more of a hard trade-off before seeing your GiveDirectly video. I was surprised at how great the video was at explaining a less obvious giving opportunity (e.g. harder to explain than “these people needed houses so we built them houses”). So overall I’m pretty optimistic that you can find a good equilibrium between good videos and good uses of charitable money.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 4 Jul 2024 10:22 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Leo’s comment on: An­nounc­ing AI Welfare De­bate Week (July 1-7)

  Makes sense Leo, thanks. I don’t want to change anything very substantial about the banner after so many users have voted, but I’ll bear this in mind for next time.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 4 Jul 2024 9:18 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Leo’s comment on: An­nounc­ing AI Welfare De­bate Week (July 1-7)

  Good point (I address similar concerns here). For the time being, personally I would treat a half agree as some percentage under 5%, and explain your vote in the discussion thread if you want to make sure that people know what you mean.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 3 Jul 2024 15:24 UTC

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Toby Tremlett🔹’s comment on: Nathan Young’s Shortform

  Also, every other week seems prima facie a bit burdensome for un-interested users.
  Additionally, I want top-down content to only be a part of the Forum. I wouldn’t want to over-shepherd discussion and end up with less wide-ranging and good quality posts.

  Happy to explore other ways to integrate polls etc if people like them and they lead to good discussions though.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 3 Jul 2024 15:21 UTC

  5 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Nathan Young’s comment on: Nathan Young’s Shortform

  A crux for me at the moment is whether we can shape debate weeks in a way which leads to deep rather than shallow engagement. If we were to run debate weeks more often, I’d (currently) want to see them causing people to change their mind, have useful conversations, etc… It’s something I’ll be looking closely at when we do a post-mortem on this debate week experiment.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 3 Jul 2024 14:05 UTC

  11 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: to­bytrem’s Quick takes

  There have been a few valid critiques of the debate framing, so I’ll make some points to respond to each of them. A general point before I start is that you should feel free to use the discussion thread to outline your opinion, and/​or, your interpretation of the debate statement. I.e. “I strongly agree with the debate statement, because I think 5% of EA Funding over the next decade is the right amount to allocate to this cause area”.
  
  1- @Jason brings up the ambiguity of the term “unrestricted” in footnote 2. I was thinking of unrestricted funding as all funding which is being allocated according to (roughly) impartial consequentialist reasoning, i.e. (roughly) EA principles. I’m contrasting that to restricted funds, for example, funds from a foundation that supports aid charities which happen to be given to an EA aid charity.
  
  2- @finm makes a very fair point in this comment: over what timescale are we allocating 5% of the EA funds? This seems like an oversight rather than an accidental ambiguity- if I were to write this again, I might have chosen the next decade, or the next year. Given that 340 users have already voted, I won’t change something so substantial now, but again, feel free to clarify your vote in the discussion thread.
  
  3- @NickLaing argues that 5% of funding might be too high a bar to simply be labelled an “EA priority”. I think this is a good point, and maybe the more accurate phrasing would be “Top EA Priority”, or the entire statement should have been relative, for example: “AI Welfare should be more of an EA priority” and the footnote could clarify this means that a strong agree = we should triple the funding and talent going into it. Again, I won’t change the phrasing now because it doesn’t seem fair for earlier voters, but I can see the case for this.
  
  Thanks for the feedback and meta-debate, very EA, keep it up!

• Toby Tremlett🔹 3 Jul 2024 12:08 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: UlfJohansson’s comment on: Open thread: July—Septem­ber 2024

  Thanks Ulf!

• Toby Tremlett🔹 2 Jul 2024 11:31 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: UlfJohansson’s comment on: Open thread: July—Septem­ber 2024

  Hi Ulf! Welcome to the Forum, and thanks for the anecdote :) If you have any questions about using the Forum/​ customising it to suit your interests, feel free to message me (click on my profile and click message).
  Cheers,
  Toby (Content Manager for the EA Forum)

Dis­cus­sion Thread: AI Welfare De­bate Week

• Toby Tremlett🔹 2 Jul 2024 8:23 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Nathan Young’s comment on: Nathan Young’s Shortform

  I’d love to hear more from the disagree reactors. They should feel very free to dm.
  I’m excited to experiment more with interactive features in the future, so critiques are especially useful now!

• Toby Tremlett🔹 2 Jul 2024 8:09 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Ozzie Gooen’s comment on: Nathan Young’s Shortform

  Interesting. Certainty could also be a Y-axis, but I think that trades off against simplicity for a banner.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 1 Jul 2024 15:29 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Brad West’s comment on: Nathan Young’s Shortform

  Thanks Brad, I didn’t foresee that! (Agree react Brad’s comment if you experienced the same thing).
  Would it have helped if we had marked increments along the slider? Like the below but prettier? (our designer is on holiday)
  

  

• Toby Tremlett🔹 1 Jul 2024 15:16 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jonas Hallgren’s comment on: My cur­rent takes on AI Welfare

  You could say something about memetics and that it is the most understandable memes that get passed down rather than the truth, which is, to some extent, fair. I guess I’m a believer that the world can be updated based on expert opinion.

  I think this is a good description of the kind of scepticism I’m attracted to, perhaps to an irrational degree. Thanks for describing it!
  
  I like your point about AI Safety. It seems at least a bit true.
  
  I’ll update my vote on the banner to be a bit less sceptical- I think my scepticism of the potential for us to know whether AI is conscious is a major part of my disagreement with the debate statement. I don’t endorse the level of scepticism I hold. Thanks!