New & upvoted

Customize feedCustomize feed
CommunityCommunity
Personal+

Posts tagged community

Quick takes

Show community
View more
37
harfe
16h
2
Consider donating all or most of your Mana on Manifold to charity before May 1. Manifold is making multiple changes to the way Manifold works. You can read their announcement here. The main reason for donating now is that Mana will be devalued from the current 1 USD:100 Mana to 1 USD:1000 Mana on May 1. Thankfully, the 10k USD/month charity cap will not be in place until then. Also this part might be relevant for people with large positions they want to sell now: > One week may not be enough time for users with larger portfolios to liquidate and donate. We want to work individually with anyone who feels like they are stuck in this situation and honor their expected returns and agree on an amount they can donate at the original 100:1 rate past the one week deadline once the relevant markets have resolved.
Animal Justice Appreciation Note Animal Justice et al. v A.G of Ontario 2024 was recently decided and struck down large portions of Ontario's ag-gag law. A blog post is here. The suit was partially funded by ACE, which presumably means that many of the people reading this deserve partial credit for donating to support it. Thanks to Animal Justice (Andrea Gonsalves, Fredrick Schumann, Kaitlyn Mitchell, Scott Tinney), co-applicants Jessica Scott-Reid and Louise Jorgensen, and everyone who supported this work!
GiveWell and Open Philanthropy just made a $1.5M grant to Malengo! Congratulations to @Johannes Haushofer and the whole team, this seems such a promising intervention from a wide variety of views
Quote from VC Josh Wolfe: > Biology. We will see an AWS moment where instead of you having to be a biotech firm that opens your own wet lab or moves into Alexandria Real Estate, which is you know, specializes in hosting biotech companies, in in all these different regions approximate to academic research centers. You will be able to just take your experiment and upload it to the cloud where there are cloud-based robotic labs. We funded some of these. There's one company called Stratios. > > There's a ton that are gonna come on wave, and this is exciting because you can be a scientist on the beach in the Bahamas, pull up your iPad, run an experiment. The robots are performing 90% of the activity of Pouring something from a beaker into another, running a centrifuge, and then the data that comes off of that. > > And this is the really cool part. Then the robot and the machines will actually say to you, “Hey, do you want to run this experiment but change these 4 parameters or these variables?” And you just click a button “yes” as though it's reverse prompting you, and then you run another experiment. So the implication here is that the boost in productivity for science, for generation of truth, of new information, of new knowledge, That to me is the most exciting thing. And the companies that capture that, forget about the societal dividend, I think are gonna make a lot of money. https://overcast.fm/+5AWO95pnw/46:15
2
Otto
11h
0
High impact startup idea: make a decent carbon emissions model for flights. Current ones simply use flight emissions which makes direct flights look low-emission. But in reality, some of these flights wouldn't even be there if people could be spread over existing indirect flights more efficiently, which is why they're cheaper too. Emission models should be relative to counterfactual. The startup can be for-profit. If you're lucky, better models already exist in scientific literature. Ideal for the AI for good-crowd. My guess is that a few man-years work could have a big carbon emissions impact here.

Popular comments

Recent discussion

Let's hang out and get to know each other in the community!  We will have several rounds of 1:1 or small group chats to hear what other Data Scientists are interested in and make new connections in the community.

Continue reading

Unfortunately there were some technical difficulties with the Zoom link.  Thanks for those who found the new room.  Also keep the conversation going on our slack channel - https://join.slack.com/share/enQtNzAyMjc2MTYzNTUyMS01NTg3MmVjODc3ZDk4ZTlkNzg3ZmMyNmE0NTc3ZjdjMWJiMWI0ODliOTJkYTYyOWNmNDhkZWU5NGIyMTVhYWEw (expires in 14 days).

1
Patrick Liu
2h
I'm getting an error from the zoom link.  Please use this room instead: https://meet.google.com/avh-vdvw-wub

You can give me anonymous feedback about anything you want here.

Summary

  • Interventions in the effective altruism community are usually assessed under 2 different frameworks, existential risk mitigation, and nearterm welfare improvement.
    • It looks like 2 distinct
...
Continue reading
3
Stan Pinsent
3h
Thanks for the detailed response, Vasco! Apologies in advance that this reply is slightly rushed and scattershot. I agree that you are right with the maths - it is 251x, not 63,000x. OK, I did not really get this! In your example on wars you say Can you give an example of what might count as "spending to save lives in wars 1k times as deadly" in this context?  I am guessing it is spending money now on things that would save lives in very deadly wars. Something like building a nuclear bunker vs making a bullet proof vest? Thinking about the amounts we might be willing to spend on interventions that save lives in 100-death wars vs 100k-death wars, it intuitively feels like 251x is a way better multiplier than 63,000. So where am I going wrong? When you are thinking about the PDF of PiPf, are you forgetting that ∇PiPf is not proportional to ∇Pf?  To give a toy example: suppose Pi=100.  Then if 90<pf<100 we have  1<PiPf<1.11 If 10<pf<20 we have  5<PiPf<10 The "height of the PDF graph" will not capture these differences in width. This won't matter much for questions of 100 vs 100k deaths, but it might be relevant for near-existential mortality levels.

Can you give an example of what might count as "spending to save lives in wars 1k times as deadly" in this context?

For example, if one was comparing wars involding 10 k or 10 M deaths, the latter would be more likely to involve multiple great power, in which case it would make more sense to improve relationships between NATO, China and Russia.

Thinking about the amounts we might be willing to spend on interventions that save lives in 100-death wars vs 100k-death wars, it intuitively feels like 251x is a way better multiplier than 63,000. So where am I going

... (read more)

Written by Claude, and very lightly edited.

In a recent episode of The Diary of a CEO podcast, guest Bryan Johnson, founder of Kernel and the Blueprint project, laid out a thought-provoking perspective on what he sees as the most important challenge and opportunity of our...

Continue reading

This is an extremely rich guy who isn't donating any of his money.

FWIW, I totally don't consider "donating" a necessary component of taking effective altruistic action. Most charities seem much less effective than for-profit organizations, and most of the good in the world seems achieved by for-profit companies. 

I don't have a particularly strong take on Bryan Johnson, but using "donations" as a proxy seems pretty bad to me.

1
Jonas Hallgren
4h
I appreciate you putting out a support post of someone who might have some EA leanings that would be good to pick up on. I may or may not have done so in the past and then removed the post because people absolutely shat on it on the forum 😅 so respect.
Sign up for the Forum's email digest
You'll get a weekly email with the best posts from the past week. The Forum team selects the posts to feature based on personal preference and Forum popularity, and also adds some announcements and a classic post.

Regulators should review the 2014 DeepMind acquisition. When Google bought DeepMind in 2014, no regulator, not the FTC, not the EC's DG COMP, nor the CMA, scrutinized the impact. Why? AI startups have high value but low revenues. And so they avoid regulation (...

Continue reading
9
Karthik Tadepalli
1h
I read it as aiming to reduce AI risk by increasing the cost of scaling. I also don't see how breaking deepmind off from Google would increase competitive dynamics. Google, Microsoft, Amazon and other big tech partners are likely to be pushing their subsidiaries to race even faster since they are likely to have much less conscientiousness about AI risk than the companies building AI. Coordination between DeepMind and e.g. OpenAI seems much easier than coordination between Google and Microsoft.

Less than a year ago Deepmind and Google Brain were two separate companies (both making cutting-edge contributions to AI development). My guess is if you broke off Deepmind from Google you would now just pretty quickly get competition between Deepmind and Google Brain (and more broadly just make the situation around slowing things down a more multilateral situation).

But more concretely, anti-trust action makes all kinds of coordination harder. After an anti-trust action that destroyed billions of dollars in economic value, the ability to get people in the same room and even consider coordinating goes down a lot, since that action itself might invite further anti-trust action.

2
Hauke Hillebrandt
3h
AI labs tend to partner with Big Tech for money, data, compute, scale etc. (e.g. Google Deepmind, Microsoft/OpenAI, and Amazon/Anthropic). Presumably to compete better?  If they they're already competing hard now, then it seems unlikely that they'll coordinate much on slowing down in the future. Also, it seems like a function of timelines: antitrust advocates argue that breaking up firms / preventing mergers would slow industry down in the short-run but speed up in the long-run by increasing competition, but if competition is usually already healthy, as libertarians often argue, then antitrust interventions might slow down industries in the long-run.
1
0

Edge of Existence

The risk of human extinction has never been higher. Recent years have seen a global pandemic, a renewed nuclear threat and runaway climate change. New research predicts a 1 in 6 chance that life as we know it won't make it to the end of this century. This compelling science documentary looks at the greatest risks to humanity and what we can do about it. Are we all doomed?

Continue reading

“I really needed to hear that”

His eyes were downcast, his normally jocular expression now solemn. I had really said something that had spoken to him, that had begun to assuage some hurt which had before remained unacknowledged.

It’s not your fault. Four words.

Later, I was...

Continue reading

University of Arizona group organizer here; everything you've talked about are things that we have tried to reconcile with. But, having not yet faced a lot of those extreme changes in leadership, significant burnout, etc I believe we are struggling to fully internalize the consequences. And just because the symptoms haven't been made readily apparent, doesn't mean that the same underlying conditions aren't there in our organization.

The largest thing we have tried (and to a large extent, I believe failed in) is prioritizing the organizers themselves as an e... (read more)

We’re seeking a Head of Philanthropy excited to supercharge our individual giving capabilities by building and shaping a strategy, team, and operational plan to grow high net worth and major donor giving. You’ll manage a large portfolio of high value donors and external stakeholders, and thoughtfully deploy senior leadership to broaden donor relationships.


If you have experience in external relations or donor cultivation, effectively securing six-figure donations, and are simply excited by the opportunity to accelerate partnerships for an impact-driven global nonprofit, we invite you to review our job description and apply!

Apply now
Continue reading
Tristan commented on NickLaing's quick take 4h ago

Im intrigued where people stand on the threshold where farmed animal lives might become net positive? I'm going to share a few scenarios i'm very unsure about and id love to hear thoughts or be pointed towards research on this.

  1. Animals kept in homesteads in rural Uganda

...
Continue reading

I suppose I agree with this. And I've been mulling over why it still seems like the wrong way to think about it to me, and I think it's that I find it rather short-termist. In the short term if farms shut down they might be replaced with nature, with even less happy animals, it's true. But in the long term opposing speciesism is the only way to achieve a world with happy beings. Clearly the kinds of farms @NickLaing is talking about, with lives worth living but still pretty miserable, are not optimal. Figuring out whether they are worth living or not seems only relevant to trying to reduce suffering in the short term, but not so much in the long term, because in the long term this isn't what we want anyway.

Crosspost of my blog.  

You shouldn’t eat animals in normal circumstances. That much is, in my view, quite thoroughly obvious. Animals undergo cruel, hellish conditions that we’d confidently describe as torture if they were inflicted on a human (or even a dog). No hamburger...

Continue reading
13
jackva
7h
@Vasco Grillo would be well-placed to do the math here, but I have the strong intuition that under most views giving some weight to animal welfare the marginal climate damage from additional beef consumption will be outweighed by animal suffering reduction by a large margin.  
21
Vasco Grilo
6h
Thanks for tagging me, Johannes! I have not read the post, but in my mind one should overwhelmingly focus on minimising animal suffering in the context of food consumption. I estimate the harm caused by the annual food consumption of a random person is 159 times that caused by their annual GHG emissions. Fig. 4 of Kuruc 2023 is relevant to the question. A welfare weight of 0.05 means that one values 0.05 units of welfare in humans as much as 1 unit of welfare in animals, and it would still require a social cost of carbon of over 7 k$/t for prioritising beed reductions, whereas United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes one of 190 $/t. If one values 1 unit of welfare the same regardless of species (i.e. if one rejects speciesism), there is basically no way it makes sense to go from beef to poultry.

Vasco, I've read your post to which the first link leads quickly, so please correct me if I'm wrong. However, it left me wondering about two things:

(a) It wasn't clear to me that the estimate of global heating damages was counting global heating damages to non-humans.  The references to DALYs and 'climate change affecting more people with lower income' lead me to suspect you're not. But non-humans will surely be the vast majority of the victims of global heating--as well as, in some cases, its beneficiaries. While Timothy Chan is quite right to point ... (read more)