Comment author: BenMillwood  (EA Profile) 16 December 2017 04:38:03PM 1 point [-]

For the benefit of future readers: Giving Tuesday happened, and the matching funds were exhausted within about 90 seconds. In total of ~$370k in donations we matched ~$46k, or about 13%, which was lower than hoped. William wrote up a lessons-learned document as a Google doc.

Comment author: ThomasSittler 16 December 2017 11:26:42AM 0 points [-]

by the way sam, do you plan to move Giving What We Can's "my giving" to ?

Comment author: ThomasSittler 16 December 2017 11:17:56AM 0 points [-]

This is really great, I like the idea of CEA building online infrastructure for the community. The explanation of the lottery is pretty good and you've clearly put a lot of effort into it. It is still not perfectly clear in parts.

The draw date is the time at which the lottery will be drawn. The UNIX timestamp of this date will be used to select the NIST beacon entry from which the winning lottery number is derived.

An explanation of NIST beacon entry would be nice here.

The block size is guaranteed by a benefactor who agrees to ‘backstop’ the pot up to this amount.

I'm assuming from context that this means Paul will pay the whole 100,000 even if less than 100,000 is donated by individual entrants in the lottery. More explanation would be nice. [OK, this becomes clearer later in the text, when you say "Unallocated number ranges will be assigned as a ‘ticket’ to the lottery guarantor". But the flow is not smooth]

It's also not entirely clear to me how block overflow is handled. Do you have a second guarantor waiting in the wings for the second block?

Comment author: SamDeere 16 December 2017 07:46:43AM 0 points [-]

Yes, we can take donations in cryptocurrency (it's worth noting that donating appreciated assets can have tax advantages over converting and donating in fiat). We're in the process of figuring out a solution that allows you to do this directly via the website, but for now if you want to donate in crypto please email lottery[at]effectivealtruism[dot]org and we can discuss

Comment author: SamDeere 16 December 2017 07:43:24AM *  1 point [-]

It's not clear to me how a donor lottery would capture all the considerations. Can you elaborate?

In this case, you haven't found an advisor who you trust to take into account all the things you consider to be relevant. So, instead of relying on a third-party advisor, you do the research yourself. As research is costly for any given individual to undertake, it may not make sense for you to do this with a smaller donations, but with the larger pot, if you win, you've got more incentive to undertake whatever research you feel is necessary (i.e. that 'captures the relevant considerations').

Does this presume that (some) donors already know where they prefer to donate, rather than offsetting time spent on additional research with a larger donation pool?

It's just meant to illustrate that the value of the amount that you would be able to grant to a preferred organization is the same in expectation whether you participate in the lottery or donate directly. The lottery then may generate additional upside, potentially increasing the effectiveness of your donation if you do more research, and also giving you access to different funding opportunities (providing seed funding for an organization, donating to organizations that have a minimum donation threshold etc)

Is there an expectation (or requirement) that the winning donor provides a write-up of their research and reasoning for their selected charity?

We think that it's in the spirit of the lottery that someone who does useful research that would be of interest to other donors should publish it (or give permission for CEA to publish their grant recommendation). Also, if they convince others to donate then they'll be causing additional grants to go to their preferred organization(s). We'll strongly encourage winners to do so, however, in the interests of keeping the barriers to entry low, we haven't made it a hard requirement.

Comment author: sdspikes 16 December 2017 05:04:09AM 0 points [-]

It looks like these all require relocating to Oxford, is that accurate?

Comment author: persis 16 December 2017 03:14:14AM 0 points [-]

Interesting! Some questions from the explanation on the website:

But choosing which advisors to rely on is also difficult, and it may be the case that there is no relevant expert who you believe captures all the considerations.

It's not clear to me how a donor lottery would capture all the considerations. Can you elaborate?

In expectation, each donor is granting the same amount of money to their preferred charities as they would have if they had donated directly.

Does this presume that (some) donors already know where they prefer to donate, rather than offsetting time spent on additional research with a larger donation pool?

However, for the donor that wins, the larger pot of money makes it worthwhile to spend more time and energy researching where the money should go. It also creates an economy of scale for the other individual donors in the lottery, as only one person is required to do the research...

Is there an expectation (or requirement) that the winning donor provides a write-up of their research and reasoning for their selected charity?

Comment author: Kelly_Witwicki 16 December 2017 01:33:07AM 2 points [-]

Thank you Kieran! I will look into global numbers for farmed bait fish and fish mortality, and either update the sheet on that or qualify it with info about this if I cannot find/make estimates. Will update our US estimates too, and also qualify about these numbers being vertebrates. :)

Comment author: brunoparga 16 December 2017 01:03:36AM 2 points [-]

This isn't a commitment, but, just as a curiosity: does the CEA take cryptocurrency?

Comment author: MichaelPlant 16 December 2017 12:38:14AM 1 point [-]

Totally agree. I combed through the research agenda and thought there was loads of cool stuff there.

Comment author: MichaelPlant 16 December 2017 12:37:46AM 0 points [-]

Yeah, works with explorer but not chrome...

Comment author: kierangreig 15 December 2017 06:38:18PM *  6 points [-]

[Disclosure: I am a Research Associate at ACE.]

I am also excited about Sentience Institute’s work and look forward to seeing more :)

Small point:

We also produced Global Farmed & Factory Farmed Animals Estimates, suggesting that around 71% of farmed land animals and probably 96% of all farmed animals globally are factory farmed, and that probably 85% of the farmed animals alive at any time are fish.

The estimate of farmed fish numbers used in that estimate relies on Mood and Brooke (2012). The Mood and Brooke (2012) “estimate does not include the numbers of fish farmed for bait and it does not include fish mortalities arising in fish farms prior to harvest….” (p.2). Those exclusions seem significant. E.g.,

  • This article claims that “six billion bait minnows—predominantly golden shiners, fathead minnows, and goldfish—are raised in Arkansas each year and shipped throughout the country.” That would be nearly 19 minnows per capita, more than all the finfish farmed for food for U.S. consumption.

  • ACE estimates that for the four most consumed farmed finfish in the U.S. the mortality rate prior to slaughter is 18-60%, 5-35%, 10-38%, and 12-65% (as 90% subjective confidence intervals) for salmon, tilapia, pangasius and catfish respectively.

Including those quantities in the overall estimate seems like it will take the percentage estimate of the proportion of all farmed animals that are factory farmed much closer to 100%.

It is probably also worth noting that the Global Farmed & Factory Farmed Animals Estimates does not to include estimates for the number of farmed insects (e.g., silkworms and honey bees.) The sheer number of those insects could have a big impact on the percentage estimate of the proportion of all farmed animals that are factory farmed too!

Comment author: vaniver 15 December 2017 05:20:28PM 1 point [-]

Thanks! Also, for future opportunities like this, probably the fastest person to respond will be Colm.

Comment author: tobiaspulver 15 December 2017 03:24:07PM 2 points [-]

They also work for me, using Firefox.

But what I really wanted to say is that the reserach agenda looks great! I'm of course especially excited about the potential research projects mentioned in the section "The Value of the Future" :) Great to see that these questions are getting more attention!

I've shared the post with EA group leaders in the German-speaking community.

Comment author: Ben_Todd 15 December 2017 02:55:17PM 0 points [-]

Note as well that there's this much wider list, which automatically scrapes from the organisation's job boards and has filters, though it needs to be neatened up:

We know the founders and they're willing to add more features on requests (e.g. different cause filters). But, they would eventually want some payment for providing it.

Comment author: Michelle_Hutchinson 15 December 2017 12:15:53PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for the heads up! I think this is a browser issue with the uni website. It actually works for me on Chrome and Edge, but others have found they don't work on Chrome, but do work on Safari. Would you mind trying a different browser and seeing if that works?

Comment author: Mjreard 15 December 2017 04:38:27AM 0 points [-]

Am I violating Reddiquette by advising people to browse the thread, use ctrl+F, and sort by new to find comments they might enjoy?

Comment author: zdgroff 15 December 2017 12:21:43AM 7 points [-]

I love the work you're doing. The anti-nuclear study was really thorough and well-written, and the research plans are basically exactly the sorts of things I think effective animal advocates need.

Comment author: Henry_Stanley 15 December 2017 12:04:17AM 1 point [-]

Nothing in that article suggests that the data was low quality

I think the fact that Lisak literally cannot remember where his data comes from should be concerning.

That's irrelevant here, because the number here is being used as a representation of men in EA, not men on college campuses.

Good point - I'll instead say then that these numbers are likely specific to the particular population of that college and are even less likely to be useful for making inferences about the EA community as a whole. Lisak himself says of the study:

"Because of the nonrandom nature of the sampling procedures, the reported data cannot be interpreted as estimates of the prevalence of sexual or other acts of violence."

Comment author: Henry_Stanley 14 December 2017 11:50:05PM *  1 point [-]


Yes, that's the idea. Have chatted to Richard at 80K; we'll see what happens in terms of "official" adoption. But with a bit of automated scraping (and manual work) I don't see why this shouldn't end up being a superset of the 80K jobs board listings and those in the Facebook group.

View more: Next