The Turing Test

I'm happy to announce that the first episodes of Harvard Effective Altruism's podcast, the Turing Test, are already online.

The first four episodes feature

  • Larry Summers on his career, economics and EA
  • Irene Pepperberg on animal cognition and ethics
  • Josh Greene on moral cognition and EA
  • Adam Marblestone on incentives in science, differential technological development etc.

My co-host Holly Elmore and I recorded a couple more, including Lant Pritchett, Bryan Caplan, Scott Weathers, Spencer Greenberg and Brian Tomasik. Among other things, the guest has to pass an "ideological Turing Test" - i.e. state opposing views as clearly and persuasively as their proponents.

You should be able to subscribe on your favorite platform. We're looking forward to hearing your feedback!

Comments (6)

Comment author: Michael_PJ 17 September 2017 07:17:52PM 1 point [-]

Is there any way to make it available without using iTunes?

Comment author: KevinWatkinson  (EA Profile) 18 September 2017 01:14:49PM 1 point [-]

I just listened to an interesting one with Brian Tomisik here: https://harvardeapodcast.com/2017/09/17/episode-5-brian-tomasik/

Comment author: Vincent-Soderberg 14 September 2017 09:38:51AM 2 points [-]

Great podcast! A question.

1: is it possible to have an episode on the science of movement building? Not that i know much of it.

Comment author: Ales_Flidr 15 September 2017 04:50:45PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for the suggestion! Sounds like a fun topic, will definitely think of potential guests when we get back to recording.

Comment author: zdgroff 11 September 2017 06:48:54PM 2 points [-]

Nice interview subjects! Very impressive. I'd be curious to hear what made you decide to make an ideological Turing test part of every episode. It's clearly very in line with EA ideals, but why that exercise in particular?

Comment author: Ales_Flidr 15 September 2017 04:55:22PM 2 points [-]

Thanks :) The idea behind the Ideological Turing Test is (a) to put epistemic rationality into the spotlight (b) to see how good a model the guests have of the debate and how well they considered the other side, which should help you think about how seriously you should take their claims (c) we think it's kind of fun :)