Summary: Even from an anti-realist stance on morality, there are various reasons we might expect moral convergence in practice.
[Largely written two years ago; cleaned up for draft amnesty week. The ideas benefited from comments and conversations with many people; errors...
I really appreciated this report, it seemed one of the most honest and open communications to come out of Open Philanthropy, and it helped me connect with your priorities and vision. A couple of specific things I liked.
I appreciated the comment about the Wytham Abby purchase, recognising the flow on effects Open Phil decisions can have on the wider community, and even just acknowledging a mistake - something which is both difficult and uncommon in leadership.
"But I still think I personally made a mistake in not objecting to this grant back when the initial...
This is a cross-post from the CGD Blog. For the original post and downloadable Note please visit: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/1-trillion-paradox-why-reforming-research-publishing-should-be-global-priority .
----
Our research system is a perplexing paradox. Each year, approximately $1 trillion of public funds are spent on research worldwide. Whole careers are spent making incremental improvements to research methods. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on a single clinical trial. And yet, the global system for sharing research results is a costly mess. Rooted in antiquated journal structures and marred by market failures, our research systems prioritise profit at the expense of accessibility, equity, and affordability, hindering our ability to fully reap the benefits of research.
A prior CGD blog argued that research reform is a critical issue for global development and...
Reflecting on the upcoming EAGx event in Utrecht, I find myself both excited and cautiously optimistic about its potential to further grow the Dutch EA community. My experiences from the last EAGX in the Netherlands marked a pivotal moment in my own EA journey (significantly grounding it locally) and boosted the community's growth. I think this event also contributed to the growth of the 10% club and the founding of the School for Moral Ambition this year, highlighting the Netherlands as fertile ground for EA principles.
However, I'm less inclined to view the upcoming event as an opportunity to introduce proto-EAs. Recalling the previous Rotterdam edition's perceived expense, I'm concerned that the cost may deter potential newcomers, especially given the feedback I've heard regarding its perceived extravagance. I think we all understand why these events are worth our charitable Euros, but I have a hard time explaining that to newcomers who are attracted to EA for its (perceived) efficiency/effectiveness.
While the funding landscape may have changed (and this problem may have solved itself through that), I think it remains crucial to consider the aesthetics of events like these where the goal is in part to welcome new members into our community.
If you've read Leif's WIRED article or Poverty is No Pond & have questions for him, I'd love to share them with him & in turn share his answers here.
Thank you, M, for sharing this with me & encouraging me to connect.
My understanding is you are unsupportive of earning-to-give. I agree the trappings of expensive personal luxuries are both substantively bad (often) and poor optics. But the core idea that some people are very lucky and have the opportunity to earn huge amounts of money which they can (and should) then donate, and that this can be very morally valuable, seems right to me. My guess is that regardless of your critiques of specific charities (bednets, deworming, CATF) you still think there are morally important things to do with money. So what do you think of ETG - why is the central idea wrong (if you indeed think that)?
This post summarizes "Against the Singularity Hypothesis," a Global Priorities Institute Working Paper by David Thorstad. This post is part of my sequence of GPI Working Paper summaries. For more, Thorstad’s blog, Reflective Altruism, has a three...
This paper was published as a GPI working paper in March 2024.
The Fading Qualia Argument is perhaps the strongest argument supporting the view that in order for a system to be conscious, it does not need to be made of anything in particular, so long as its internal...
This doesn’t seem so different from p-zombies, and probably some moral thought experiments.
I'm not sure what you mean here. That the simulation argument doesn't seem different from those? Or that the argument that 'we have no evidence of their existence and therefore shouldn't update on speculation about them' is comparable to what I'm saying about the simulation hypothesis?
If the latter, fwiw, I feel the same way about p-zombies and (other) thought experiments. They are a terrible methodology for reasoning about anything, very occasionally the only ...
Manifold is hosting a festival for prediction markets: Manifest 2024! We’ll have serious talks, attendee-run workshops, and fun side events over the weekend. Chat with special guests like Nate Silver, Scott Alexander, Robin Hanson, Dwarkesh Patel, Cate Hall, and...
But first, a wholesome photo of us on 'launch day' over a year ago now.
The Long Game Project (LGP) aims to improve institutional decision-making (IIDM), planning, forecasting and creative thinking using tabletop exercises (TTXs) and scenarios.
We aim to improve the way leaders practise decision-making and thinking when the stakes are low to prepare for when the stakes are high. To help challenge judgments, identify mental mindsets, stimulate creativity, manage uncertainty, and improve dynamic awareness. We are improving how table-topping is done.
(Sanjana tells me this net promotor score means that when people use us, they are very likely to recommend us...