In response to Open Thread #39
Comment author: HaydnBelfield 02 November 2017 09:08:55PM 2 points [-]

The recent quality of posts has been absolutely stellar*. Keep it up everyone!

*interesting, varied, informative, written to be helpful/useful, rigorous, etc

Comment author: HaydnBelfield 06 October 2017 06:18:20PM 2 points [-]

Really glad to see you taking conflicts of interest so seriously!

Comment author: HaydnBelfield 03 April 2017 07:06:22PM 1 point [-]

This is incredibly valuable (and even groundbreaking) work. Well done for doing it, and for writing it up so clearly and informatively!

Comment author: HaydnBelfield 03 April 2017 07:03:29PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for this!

I personally agree that Democratic control of Congress, or even Congress and the Presidency, would be great. But I'm not sure how likely that is, or how certain that I should be about that likelihood.

Even if there was a high certainty and high likelihood, I probably still wouldn't take that option - the increased risk for four years is just too high. As Michael_S says you get higher nuclear risk and higher pandemic risk. As I said in my post, I think Trump also raises the risks of increased global instability, increased international authoritarianism, climate change, and emerging technologies. Take climate change - we really don't have long to fix it! We need to make significant progress by 2030 - we can't afford to go backwards for four years.

[Writing in a personal capacity, my views are not my employer's]

Comment author: HaydnBelfield 02 March 2017 06:39:30PM 2 points [-]

Whatever happened to EA Ventures?

In response to EA Funds Beta Launch
Comment author: HaydnBelfield 28 February 2017 06:30:30PM 11 points [-]

This is a great idea and you've presented it fairly, clearly and persuasively. I've donated.

Comment author: TaraMacAulay 28 February 2017 07:23:40AM 13 points [-]

We plan to send quarterly updates to all EA Funds donors detailing the total size of the fund and details of any grants made in the period. We will also publish grant reports on the EA Funds website and will keep an updated grant history on the fund description page, much in the same manner as Open Phil. We plan to publish a more detailed review of the project in 3 months, at which time we will reassess, and possibly make significant changes to the current iteration of the funds.

While the EA Giving Group DAF (EAGG) will continue to run, we suspect that many donors interested in the EAGG will prefer to donate to the EA Community fund or the Far Future fund. These funds will be easier to use, tax deductible in both the UK and the US, and will not have a large minimum donation amount. We were actually inspired to create these funds, in part, due to the success of the EAGG - we saw this as something like a super-MVP version of this idea.

Comment author: HaydnBelfield 28 February 2017 06:12:54PM 4 points [-]

Peter's question was one I asked in the previous post as well. I'm pleased with this answer, thanks Tara.

Comment author: AmyLabenz 28 February 2017 04:14:33PM 1 point [-]

So sorry for the delay!

Yes, they are different events. That is the EAGx Boston from last year. This year we will hold one of the three main EAG events in the Boston area. I expect the contract today so I will be able to announce dates shortly.

Comment author: HaydnBelfield 28 February 2017 06:03:50PM 0 points [-]


Comment author: HaydnBelfield 24 February 2017 01:27:49PM 20 points [-]

Thanks for this! Its mentioned in the post and James and Fluttershy have made the point, but I just wanted to emphasise the benefits to others of Open Philanthropy continuing to engage in public discourse. Especially as this article seems to focus mostly on the cost/benefits to Open Philanthropy itself (rather than to others) of Open Philanthropy engaging in public discourse.

The analogy of academia was used. One of the reasons academics publish is to get feedback, improve their reputation and to clarify their thinking. But another, perhaps more important, reason academics publish academic papers and popular articles is to spread knowledge.

As an organisation/individual becomes more expert and established, I agree that the benefits to itself decrease and the costs increase. But the benefit to others of their work increases. It might be argued that when one is starting out the benefits of public discourse go mostly to oneself, and when one is established the benefits go mostly to others.

So in Open Philanthropy’s case it seems clear that the benefits to itself (feedback, reputation, clarifying ideas) have decreased and the costs (time and risk) have increased. But the benefits to others of sharing knowledge have increased, as it has become more expert and better at communicating.

For example, speaking personally, I have found Open Philanthropy’s shallow investigations on Global Catastrophic Risks a very valuable resource in getting people up to speed – posts like Potential Risks from Advanced Artificial Intelligence: The Philanthropic Opportunity have also been very informative and useful. I’m sure people working on global poverty would agree.

Again, just wanted to emphasise that others get a lot of benefit from Open Philanthropy continuing to engage in public discourse (in the quantity and quality at which it does so now).


New Vacancy: Policy & AI at Cambridge University

Research Associate: Policy, Responsible Innovation & the future of AI The Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (CFI) is currently recruiting for a postdoctoral Research Associate to join the project 'Policy, Responsible Innovation and the Future of AI' . The appointment will be for 3 years, and is based... Read More

View more: Next