Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 08 September 2018 10:19:25PM 3 points [-]

The small beta version opened this week, and we plan to run that for roughly two weeks before opening to the wider community.

Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 19 September 2018 07:40:52PM 2 points [-]

I didn't fully understand the steps here - we'll be moving to an open beta soon, and the full version (with all posts and comments from the current forum ported over, links redirected, etc) will likely open in October.

Comment author: tobyjolly 17 September 2018 12:36:42PM *  3 points [-]

Are there any estimates of GWWC attrition other than this one?

Linear growth in new members with a fixed attrition rate would result in active members curving towards a plateau (~12,000 assuming ~600 new members and ~5% attrition annually).

Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 17 September 2018 01:26:39PM 1 point [-]

We haven't updated attrition rates since then, no. We're hoping that having the donation recording system (pledge dashboard, formerly My Giving) integrated with the EA Funds login will yield us better data this year.

Comment author: kbog  (EA Profile) 10 September 2018 02:25:20AM 2 points [-]

What statements were "harsher than necessary"?

Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 10 September 2018 02:18:12PM 6 points [-]

I'll PM you.

Comment author: Dunja 10 September 2018 10:02:04AM *  15 points [-]

This is a nice idea though I'd like to suggest some adjustments to the welcome message (also in view of kbog's worries discussed above). Currently the message begins with:

"(...) we ask that EAs who currently focus on improving the far future not participate. In particular, if you currently prioritize AI risks or s-risks, we ask you not participate."

I don't think it's a good idea to select participants in a discussion according to what they think or do (it pretty much comes down to an Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy). It would be better to specify what the focus of the discussion is, and to welcome those interested in that topic. So I suggest replacing the above with:

"we ask that the discussion be focused on improving the near future, and that the far-future topics (such as AI risks or s-risks) be left for other venues, unless they are of direct relevance for an ongoing discussion on the topic of near future improvements." (or something along those lines).

Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 10 September 2018 02:17:35PM *  16 points [-]

I like this suggestion - personally I feel a lot of uncertainty about what to prioritize, and given that a portion of my donations go to near-term work I'd enjoy taking part in discussion about how to best do that, even if I'm also seriously considering whether to prioritize long-term work. But I'd be totally happy to have the topic of that space limited to near-term work.

Comment author: kbog  (EA Profile) 10 September 2018 12:08:35AM *  7 points [-]

Discord lets you separate servers into different channels for people to talk about different things. There is already an EA Discord, of course new and near term EAs are welcome there. I think it would be bad if we split things like this because the more the near term EAs isolate themselves, the more and more "alienated" people will feel elsewhere, so it will be a destructive feedback loop. You're creating the problem that you are trying to solve.

Also, it would reinforce the neglect of mid-term causes which have always gotten too little attention in EA.

I ask that far-future effective altruists and people whose priority cause area is AI risk or s-risks do not participate.

Yeah, this isn't good policy. It should be pretty clear that this is how groupthink happens, and you're establishing it as a principle. I get that you feel alienated because, what, 60% of people have a different point of view? (perish the thought!) And you want to help with the growth of the movement. But hopefully you can find a better way to do this than creating an actual echo chamber. It's clearly a poor choice as far as epistemology is concerned.

You're also creating the problem you're trying to solve in a different way. Whereas most "near-term EAs" enjoy the broad EA community perfectly well, you're reinforcing an assumption that they can't get along, that they should expect EA to "alienate" them, as they hear about your server. As soon as people are pointed towards a designated safe space, they're going to assume that everything on the outside is unfriendly to them, and that will bias their perceptions going forward.

You are likely to have a lighter version of the problem that Hatreon did with Patreon, Voat with Reddit, etc - whenever a group of people has a problem with the "mainstream" option and someone tries to create an alternative space, the first people who jump ship to the alternative will be the highly-motivated people on the extreme end of the spectrum, who are the most closed-minded and intolerant of the mainstream, and they are going to set the norms for the community henceforth. Don't get me wrong, it's good to expand EA with new community spaces and be more appealing to new people, it is always nice to see people put effort into new ideas for EA, but this is very flawed, I strongly recommend that you revise your plans.

Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 10 September 2018 02:18:42AM 16 points [-]

Moderator note: I found this harsher than necessary. I think a few tone changes would have made the whole message feel more constructive.

Comment author: MichaelPlant 09 September 2018 09:23:12AM *  6 points [-]

On prizes 1) when would you plan to start them from (i.e. what are posts eligible for this) 2) have you thought much about extrinsic motivation crowding out intrinsic motivation? My worry is that by offering financial rewards, it changes how people will think about this e.g. "well, I'm probably not going to win anything, so I won't bother posting" or "there was some really good content this month, I'm going to hold onto mine"

Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 09 September 2018 12:13:55PM *  6 points [-]

1) The first period for prizes will start as soon as the new forum is open to everyone.

2) Yes, this was a concern we had, but we decided that encouraging a wave of people's best content in the early period of the new forum was worth trying.

Comment author: SiebeRozendal 08 September 2018 04:33:41PM 2 points [-]

Roughly when will the new forum be launched, if I may ask?

Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 08 September 2018 10:19:25PM 3 points [-]

The small beta version opened this week, and we plan to run that for roughly two weeks before opening to the wider community.

In response to Open Thread #41
Comment author: ToniA 06 September 2018 11:19:48PM 12 points [-]

Hi, I’m ACE’s new research director. Help give me karma to post on the forum!

In response to comment by ToniA on Open Thread #41
Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 07 September 2018 03:07:44PM 0 points [-]

Hi Toni, the moderators can also give you posting ability, you should be all set now!

Comment author: AGB 19 August 2018 10:08:07PM 11 points [-]

(Speaking as a member of the panel, but not in any way as a representative of CEA).

It’s worth noting the panel hasn’t been consulted on anything in the last 12 months. I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with this, especially since it was set up partly in response to the Intentional Insights affair and AFAIK there has been no similar event in that time, but I have a vague feeling that someone reading Julia’s posts would think it was more common, which I guess was part of the ‘question behind your question’, if that makes sense :)

Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 22 August 2018 02:50:05AM 2 points [-]

Sorry, I think we must have had a miscommunication within CEA - I had the understanding that we'd written to the panel last week about something, but apparently that didn't happen yet. In general, though, it's true that we've only asked the panel for input rarely.

Comment author: Milan_Griffes 16 August 2018 04:50:29PM 3 points [-]

Is there a process for joining & leaving the advisory panel, or is that handled informally?

Also, could you say a little more about how & when the panel is engaged for feedback?

Comment author: Julia_Wise  (EA Profile) 18 August 2018 01:53:52AM 5 points [-]

We've had this panel for a little more than a year, and haven't yet have turnover. If looking for a new member, we'd look for someone who had given us helpful outside perspective / criticism in the past.

We've asked the panel for feedback primarily when making decisions where CEA's view of its proper role in the community is especially likely to differ from others' view of CEA's proper role. One example is around whether CEA should express views on which other organizations are EA organizations.

View more: Next