This research report summarizes a new meta-analysis: Preventing Sexual Violence —A Behavioral Problem Without a Behaviorally-Informed Solution, on which we are coauthors along with Roni Porat, Ana P. Gantman, and Elizabeth Levy Paluck.
The vast majority of papers try to ...
The Astral Codex Ten (ACX) Grants impact market is live on Manifund — invest in 50+ proposals across projects in biotech, AI alignment, education, climate, economics, social activism, chicken law, etc. You can now invest in projects that you think will produce great results...
At least in the simple theoretical case. Maybe in practice small-value projects don't get funded.
Scott Alexander has stated that: "Since most people won’t create literally zero value, and I don’t want to be overwhelmed with requests to buy certificates for tiny amounts, I’m going to set a limit that I won’t buy certificates that I value at less than half their starting price." I'm not sure exactly what "starting price" means here, but one could envision a rule like this causing a lot of grants which the retrofunder would assign some non-trivial value...
The decline of our available assets should disproportionately affect funding for GHW relative to GCR because we think that opportunities in our GHW portfolio vary less in terms of expected cost-effectiveness. That is, we think GHW opportunities are more closely clustered around the “bar” we use to define which grants meet our standards for cost-effectiveness.
I wonder whether the 2nd sentence above means you have cost-effectiveness estimates of your GHW grants. If so, I think it would be good if you shared them for transparency. I appreciate justifying well...
Tl;dr: One of the biggest problems facing any kind of collective action today is the fracturing of the information landscape. I propose a collective, issue-agnostic observatory with a mix of algorithmic and human moderation for the purposes of aggregating information, separate...
It is true that this is not likely to solve the disinformation crisis. It is also true that the successful implementation of such a platform would be quite difficult. However, there are reasons why I outlined the platform as I did:
Cross-posted as there may be others interested in educating others about early-stage research fields on this forum. I am considering taking on additional course design projects over the next few months. Learn more about hiring me to consult on course design.
What I had in mind was "shows up to all 8 discussion groups for the taught part of the course". I also didn't check this figure, so that was from memory.
True, there are lots of ways to define it (e.g. finishing the readings, completing the project, etc)
I’m Emma from the Communications team at the Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA). I want to flag a few media items related to EA that have come out recently or will be coming out soon, given they’ll touch on topics—like FTX—that I expect will be of interest to Forum readers...
Considering how much mud was being slung around the FTX collapse, "clearing CEA's name" and proving that no one there knew about the fraud seems not just like PR to me, but pretty important for getting the org back to a place where it’s able to meaningfully do its work.
Plus, that investigation is not the only thing mentioned in the reflection reform paragraph. The very next sentence also says CEA has "reinvested in donor due diligence, updated our conflict-of-interest policies and reformed the governance of our organization, replacing leadership on the board and the staff."
I believe that doing EA community building, especially at top universities, can be a great early career move for certain people. It’s possible that not enough students or recent graduates are aware of the reasons why this could be a good option for them, so I wanted to lay out my thoughts in this post. My central claim is that running an EA or cause area group at a top university can provide very useful career capital for individuals in the early stages of their careers.
The specific work I’m referring to is currently funded through Open Philanthropy’s University Group Organiser Fellowship. This usually involves running an Effective Altruism or cause area (e.g. AI Safety) group at a university. Open Philanthropy provides funding for organisers working at least 10 hours per week, though in this post I’m mostly thinking of people doing this work full-time (or something close to that)[1]. My...
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...
Hi James, I feel quite guilty for prompting you to write such a long, detailed, and persuasive response! Striving to find a balance between prudence and appeal seems to be the ideal goal. Using the NHS's spending habits as a heuristic to avoid extravagance seems smart (although I would not say that this should apply to other events!). Most importantly, I am relieved to learn that this year's budget per person will likely be significantly lower.
I totally agree that these events are invaluable. EAGs and EAGxs have been crucial in expanding my network and enhancing my impact and agency. However, as mentioned, I am concerned about perceptions. Having heard this I feel reassured, and I will see who I can invite! Thank you!
That's nice to read! But please don't feel guilty, I found it to be a very useful prompt to write up my thoughts on the matter.
As the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the fate of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs presented a new type of catastrophic risk: what would happen to all the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and materials, and the scientists who worked on them...
Executive summary: The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which aimed to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction in former Soviet states after 1991, succeeded due to the interpersonal skills, strategic leadership, and personal qualities of key individuals involved in its origins and implementation.
Key points:
Why did you chose 1986 as a starting point? Attitudes about sexual violence seem to have changed a lot since then, so I wonder if the potential staleness of the older studies outweighs the value of having more studies for the analysis. [Finding no meaningful differences based on study age would render this question moot.]