Comment author: Ben_West  (EA Profile) 16 August 2017 09:27:41PM 0 points [-]

I'm curious if you think that the "reflective equilibrium" position of the average person is net negative?

E.g. many people who would describe themselves as "conservationists" probably also think that suffering is bad. If they moved into reflective equilibrium, would they give up the conservation or the anti-suffering principles (where these conflict)?

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 17 August 2017 01:33:41AM 0 points [-]

I don't know, but I would guess that people would give up conservation under reflective equilibrium (assuming and insofar as conservation is, in fact, net negative).

Comment author: MichaelPlant 09 August 2017 05:10:25PM 0 points [-]

ah, hadn't spotted that. Must have been caused by copying and pasting it across from a word doc. Can you suggest a way I can reformat it so clicking citations in text takes you down to the footnotes and clicking them in the footnotes takes you to where they are in the text?

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 10 August 2017 03:24:33AM 0 points [-]

If you delete the "file:///C:/Users/Michael/Desktop/drug%20policy%20reform%20part%201.docx" part in all the links it should work!

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 09 August 2017 04:00:06PM 1 point [-]

FYI your footnotes are still links within a private document on file:///C:/Users/Michael/Dekstop.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 03 August 2017 03:50:26PM 2 points [-]

The 2017 EA Survey data (forthcoming) includes donations to individual charities, which will make it a good data source for this analysis (once it is published).

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 07 August 2017 04:45:14AM *  2 points [-]

Here's the data for number of orgs people donate to.

0: 42

1: 23

2: 17

3: 11

4: 5

5: 8

6: 2

7: 0

8: 1

...So that means 65.7% of people in the 2017 EA Survey split their donations.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 06 August 2017 07:33:43PM *  2 points [-]

Cancer research may not be so bad at far as developed world interventions go.

The Wellcome Trust, a UK-based medical research charity funding research into human and animal health, estimated that “total expenditure on cancer-related research [in the UK] from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion” and that “over the period 1991–2010, the interventions included in the study produced 5.9 million quality-adjusted life years”. This would imply a return of £2542.37 per DALY at the time of the study, or ~$4195 per DALY in 2016 US dollars.

Separately, Holden Karnofsky at the Open Philanthropy Project estimated the cost-effectiveness of cancer research in the US to be ~$2800 per DALY.

Notably, none of these estimates compare well to the best developing world interventions (~$80 per DALY), but they are far more cost-effective than the average medical intervention at $30K per DALY in 2016 US dollars (Tengs, et. al., 1994, p371).

Of course, that these estimates are not robust and comparisons with figures from other sources are not apples-to-apples.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 03 August 2017 03:50:26PM 2 points [-]

The 2017 EA Survey data (forthcoming) includes donations to individual charities, which will make it a good data source for this analysis (once it is published).

In response to comment by Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) on EAGx Relaunch
Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 25 July 2017 05:27:06AM 0 points [-]

large number of rejected EA Grants proposals

Is there info about this somewhere?

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 25 July 2017 07:08:45AM 0 points [-]

It was in a email sent to rejected EA grants applicants.

In response to comment by Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) on EAGx Relaunch
Comment author: Roxanne_Heston  (EA Profile) 24 July 2017 07:20:47PM 6 points [-]

Ah, the wording makes this unclear. It isn't that we're dictating that more events take on the more onerous format, but instead restricting the name "EAGx" to the few events who already believe it is best for their region to run a full-weekend event. In fact, we're encouraging most groups /not/ to do this, and instead run smaller, more targeted events.

The real shifts are a) discouraging groups from running events that are more intensive than suit their circumstances and b) using a different name for the less-intensive events to avoid the confusion of expectations experienced by lots of attendees last year. (To the latter, one of the main feedback types events received was "the content was too elementary" or "the content was too advanced," often about the same event.)

We're still providing funding and support to events not entitled EAGx.

In response to comment by Roxanne_Heston  (EA Profile) on EAGx Relaunch
Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 24 July 2017 10:32:19PM 2 points [-]

That makes a lot of sense; thanks for the clarification!

In response to comment by MichaelPlant on EAGx Relaunch
Comment author: Roxanne_Heston  (EA Profile) 24 July 2017 07:17:26PM 7 points [-]

Thanks for the question.

In brief, we're of the view that a) EA is more talent-constrained rather than funding-constrained (https://80000hours.org/2015/11/why-you-should-focus-more-on-talent-gaps-not-funding-gaps/), and b) the people we'd like to have do direct work in many cases already exist in the EA sphere but don't have the affordance or nudge to dedicate themselves to EA work full-time.

We, in collaboration with 80,000 Hours, have been tracking the rate and value of engagement of people we try to engage with EA. We have figured out ways to easily and systematically do early-stage engagement of potential EAs with e.g. the Doing Good Better book giveaway, 80,000 Hours decision tool, and Giving What We Can pledge. However, our sense is that the majority of value comes from the few people who are most engaged, and that effective use of talent requires greater levels of engagement. (It's more valuable to have e.g. one full-time, knowledgeable employee than the same number of hours of labor from many, short-term volunteers.) Similarly, funding that is more values-aligned can be put towards more flexible, less conventional funding areas. The scalable vehicles we developed aren't very equipped to increase engagement.

We've been really impressed many people already in the community, but when we encourage them to work for an EA organization, start their own EA project, and/or seek out other EAs with whom to collaborate, this often falls flat for lack of funding, support structure, or a clear sense of what to do/read next. In addition to the shifts in EAGx, we're attempting to address this with EA Grants, sequenced EA content, changes to EA Global, the Involvement Guide on effectivealtruism.org, and increased funneling to 80,000 Hours' one-on-one career coaching.

We'll have more on this on the CEA blog shortly.

In response to comment by Roxanne_Heston  (EA Profile) on EAGx Relaunch
Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 24 July 2017 10:31:51PM 3 points [-]

the people we'd like to have do direct work in many cases already exist in the EA sphere but don't have the affordance or nudge to dedicate themselves to EA work full-time.

Would you view the large number of rejected EA Grants proposals as evidence against this view and toward a view of funding constraints? (Of course, you can answer "yes" to that question and still think the view I quoted is accurate because of a larger balance of evidence pointing toward the quoted view.)

It's cool to see CEA thinking systematically about the entire funnel of EA talent.

In response to EAGx Relaunch
Comment author: MichaelPlant 23 July 2017 01:01:06PM 3 points [-]

This is less of a question about EAGxs themselves than the reasoning behind the change. I'm curious about this line of thinking:

EA believes that, at least at the moment, our efforts to improve the world are bottlenecked by our ability to help promising people become fully engaged, rather than attracting new interest.

Could you say 1) why CEA has come to believe this and 2) what this means you'll be trying to do differently (besides these specific changes to EAGxes)?

This isn't a critical question, would just like to know more.

In response to comment by MichaelPlant on EAGx Relaunch
Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 23 July 2017 10:07:15PM 3 points [-]

A related question -- even if CEA believes that, why does CEA believe it with enough credence to have it dictate a particularly more onerous EAGx format? Are the costs in loss of flexibility and increased expense sufficiently outweighed by the benefits?

View more: Next