Comment author: Roxanne_Heston  (EA Profile) 03 October 2017 11:34:54AM *  0 points [-]

Right, neither do I. My 25-hour estimate was how long it would take you to make one grant of ~£500,000, not a bunch of grants adding up to that amount. I assumed that if Open Phil had been distributing these funds it would have done so by giving greater amounts to far fewer recipients.

Comment author: ClaireZabel 03 October 2017 08:18:04PM 0 points [-]

Ah, k, thanks for explaining, I misinterpreted what you wrote. I agree 25 hours is in the right ballpark for that sum (though it varies a lot).

Comment author: Milan_Griffes 03 October 2017 01:22:58AM 2 points [-]

Minor thing: it'd be helpful if people who downvoted commented with their reason why.

Comment author: ClaireZabel 03 October 2017 08:14:28PM 8 points [-]

Personally, I downvoted because I guessed that the post was likely to be of interest to sufficiently few people that it felt somewhat spammy. If I imagine everyone posting with that level of selectivity I would guess the Forum would become a worse place, so it's the type of behavior I think should probably be discouraged.

I'm not very confident about that, though.

Comment author: ClaireZabel 03 October 2017 05:49:37AM 1 point [-]

An Open Phil staff member made a rough guess that it takes them 13-75 hours per grant distributed. Their average grant size is quite a bit larger, so it seems reasonable to assume it would take them about 25 hours to distribute a pot the size of EA Grants.

My experience making grants at Open Phil suggests it would take us substantially more than 25 hours to evaluate the number of grant applications you received, decide which ones to fund, and disburse the money (counting grant investigator, logistics, and communications staff time). I haven't found that time spent scales completely linearly with grant size, though it generally scales up somewhat. So while it seems about right that most grants take 13-75 hours, I don't think it's true that grants that are only a small fraction of the size of most OP grants would take an equally small fraction of that amount of time.

Comment author: ClaireZabel 30 August 2017 06:44:38AM *  8 points [-]

I think it would be useful to frontload info like 1) the number of people to took this vs. previous surveys, 2) links to previous surveys.

I think I would also prefer mildly strongly if all of the survey results were in one blog post (to make them easier to find), and prefer it strongly to have all the results for the demographic info in the demographics post. But is seems like this post doesn't include information that was requested on the survey and that seems interesting, like race/ethnicity and political views.

The proportion of atheist, agnostic or non-religious people is less than the 2015 survey. Last year that number was 87% compared to 80.6% this year. That metric hadn’t changed over the last two surveys, so this could be an indicator that inclusion of people of faith in the EA community is improving. (bolding mine)

I would recommend changing "improving" to "increasing", since I don't think the opinion that increasing the proportion of people in EA that is religious is good is universal.

Comment author: ClaireZabel 05 April 2017 02:14:02AM 1 point [-]

[minor] In the sentence, "While more pilot testing is necessary in order to make definitive judgements on SHIC as a whole, we feel that we have gathered enough data to guide strategic changes to this exceedingly novel project." "exceedingly novel" seems like a substantial exaggeration to me. There have been EA student groups, and LEAN, before (as you know), as well as inter-school groups for many different causes.

Comment author: AlasdairGives 09 March 2017 04:18:34PM 2 points [-]

Apologies I had it in my head that ACE was a CEA project

Comment author: ClaireZabel 09 March 2017 05:37:21PM 6 points [-]

Note though that ACE was originally a part of 80k Hours, which was a part of CEA. The organizations now feel quite separate, at least to me.

Additionally, I am not paid by ACE or CEA. Being on the ACE Board is a volunteer position, as is this.

Generally, I don't feel constrained in my ability to criticize CEA, outside a desire to generally maintain collegial relations, though it seems plausible to me that I'm in an echo chamber too similar to CEAs to help as much as I could if I was more on the outside. Generally, trying to do as much good as possible is the motivation for how I spend most of the hours in my day. I desperately want EA to succeed and increasing the chances that CEA makes sound decisions seems like a moderately important piece of that. That's what's been driving my thinking on this so far and I expect it'll continue to do so.

That all said (or rambled about) here's a preview of a criticism I intend to make that's not related to my role on the advisory board panel: I don't think it's appropriate to encourage students and other very young people to take the GWWC pledge, or to encourage student groups to proselytize about it. I think the analogy to marriage is helpful here; it wouldn't be right to encourage young people who don't know much about themselves or their future life situations to get married (especially if you didn't know them or their situation well yourself) and I likewise think GWWC should not encourage them to take the pledge.

Views totally my own and not my employer's (the Open Philanthropy Project).

Comment author: ClaireZabel 22 January 2017 11:53:00PM 2 points [-]

I found the formatting of this post difficult to read. I would recommend making it neater and clearer.

Comment author: ClaireZabel 06 January 2017 12:45:42AM 12 points [-]

I would prefer if the title of this post was something like "My 5 favorite EA posts of 2016". When I see "best" I expect a more objective and comprehensive ranking system (and think "best" is an irritatingly nonspecific and subjective word), so I think the current wording is misleading.

Comment author: ClaireZabel 19 December 2016 06:10:41AM 6 points [-]

For EAs that don't know, if might be helpful to provide some information about the journal, such as the size and general characteristics of the readership, as well as information about writing for it, such as what sort of background is likely helpful and how long the papers would probably be. Also hopes and expectations for the special issue, if you have any.

Comment author: RyanCarey 18 December 2016 02:49:13AM *  2 points [-]

It seems like most who are risk-hungry enough to try to start a new GiveWell charity enough would also be risk-hungry enough to consider one or another alternative cause area. So for those readers, it would seem useful to also give a counterfactual estimate for funding Open Phil suggested charities. If moving to a different cause can get you an extra order of magnitude of cost-effectiveness, then this will make giving more effective than trying to start a GiveWell charity.

Comment author: ClaireZabel 18 December 2016 03:06:39AM 2 points [-]

This gets very tricky very fast. In general, the difference in EV between people's first and second choice plan is likely to be small in situations with many options, if only because their first and second choice plans are likely to have many of the same qualities (depending on how different a plan has to be to be considered a different plan). Subtracting the most plausible (or something) counterfactual from almost anyone's impact makes it seem very small.

View more: Next