Comment author: Dunja 15 August 2018 08:30:45AM *  0 points [-]

Oh damn :-/ I was just gonna ask for the info (been traveling and could reply only now). That's really interesting, is this info published somewhere online? If not, it would maybe be worthwhile to make a post on this here and discuss both the reasons for the predominantly male community, as well as ideas for how to make it more gender-balanced.

I'd be very interested in possible relations between the lack of gender balance and the topic of representation discussed in another recent thread. For instance, it'd be interesting to see whether non-male EAs find the forum insufficiently focused on causes which they find more important, or largely focused on issues that they do not find as important.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 15 August 2018 05:27:28PM 1 point [-]

We haven't posted a gender breakdown by group yet. I can see if there may be ways to follow this up as part of our forthcoming 2018 EA Survey work.

In response to comment by joel on Open Thread #40
Comment author: joel 14 August 2018 04:24:34AM 1 point [-]

UPDATE: After scraping the initial post data, there are 200+ posts with 50 or more likes. (Obviously the group has gotten quite a bit more active over the past couple years!)

Not sure if there's a maximum length for a forum post, but regardless, this strikes me as probably too many "top posts" to feature. Would it be better to limit it to the top 50 posts? Top 100? Welcome any input on this.

In response to comment by joel on Open Thread #40
Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 14 August 2018 05:50:57AM 1 point [-]

Top 50 sounds good to me. Thanks for doing this.

Comment author: saulius  (EA Profile) 13 August 2018 11:24:40AM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure how to look into this more. Note that the 1.17 billion figure is from the U.S. Goverment report so that should be dependable, at least for the lower bound. I think some more information could be gained by going to a baitshop, looking around and asking some questions (how many fish average person buys, is the industry on the decline, etc.). I myself can not do that because I'm not in the U.S.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 13 August 2018 04:11:46PM 0 points [-]

One could potentially survey a representative fisherperson population?

Comment author: Khorton 11 August 2018 10:10:54PM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure where to find that - can you link to it or post an extract here?

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 13 August 2018 04:49:43AM 3 points [-]

As a baseline, the overall population of the survey was 73% male.

Of those who indicated they were members of the EA Forum, they were 79% male.

Of those who indicated they were member of a local group, they were 72% male.

Of those who indicated they were member of the EA Facebook Group, they were 72% male.

Of those who indicated they were member of GivingWhatWeCan, they were 76% male.

Of those who indicated they were a user of LessWrong, they were 85% male.

(For simplicity only, these responses drop people who don't indicate they are EA, don't answer either question (gender or membership), and don't pick either "Male" or "Female" as their gender. All answers are rounded to the nearest percent. Also, keep in mind the sampling bias of needing to have seen and filled out the survey in order to be counted - this may mean that we don't correctly reflect an unbiased census of the entire population as a whole.)

Comment author: Dunja 10 August 2018 08:24:21AM 1 point [-]

Thanks a lot for this post, that's really interesting and highly relevant. I'd be curious to see also the proportion of women in online forums such as this one. And of course, I'm super interested in possible reasons behind the tendencies you describe.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 11 August 2018 06:44:29PM 4 points [-]

I'd be curious to see also the proportion of women in online forums such as this one.

We have that in the EA Survey data.

Comment author: RandomEA 09 August 2018 04:32:59AM 2 points [-]

Two significant limitations are high rates of respondent attrition and the likely influence of social desirability bias and/or demand effects, as it was likely clear (post-workshop) which were the desired responses.

It seems to me one indication of social desirability bias and/or selective attrition is that there is a nearly half point shift in the average response to "I currently eat less meat than I used to for ethical reasons." On the other hand, it's possible students interpreted it as "I currently plan on eating less meat than I used to for ethical reasons."

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 09 August 2018 01:59:26PM *  1 point [-]

I wonder if it is possible to add a check for this in a future survey. Maybe ask them if they intentionally conserve their water usage to save the environment? There should be no reason for that to change from pre- to post- without a change in social desirability or attrition.

Comment author: vollmer 09 August 2018 09:50:08AM *  4 points [-]

Have you tried / considered tracking career plan changes, and if so, do you have any tentative results you could share? (If not, what's your reasoning for not focusing on this more?)

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 09 August 2018 01:58:47PM 3 points [-]

Speaking just for myself here, I think tracking career outcomes for SHIC students is important, but Canadian high schoolers in affluent areas are typically 4-7 years away from being able to start a career, so this may take awhile to track well. I also don't expect high schoolers to have meaningful and stable views on their career since it would be so early in their life.

Comment author: Denkenberger 08 August 2018 05:17:15AM 0 points [-]

I agree that a lot of work on X risk/far future is value of information. But I argued here that the distributions of cost-effectiveness in the present generation of alternative food for agricultural catastrophes did not overlap with AMF. There very well could be flow-through effects from AMF to the far future, but I think it is hard to argue that they would be greater than actually addressing X risk. So I think if you do value the far future, it would be even harder to argue that the distribution of alternate foods and AMF overlap. There would be a similar results for AI vs AMF if you believe the model referred to here.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 08 August 2018 07:02:16PM 2 points [-]

It's certainly possible to generate a cost-effectiveness estimate that doesn't overlap with AMF. I'd just be concerned with how well that estimate holds up to additional rigorous scrutiny. Many such estimates tend to decline dramatically as additional considerations are explored.

Comment author: Carl_Shulman 07 August 2018 07:38:27PM 4 points [-]

GJ results (as opposed Good Judgment Open) aren't public, but Open Phil has an account with them. This is from a batch of nuclear war probability questions I suggested that Open Phil commission to help assess nuclear risk interventions.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 07 August 2018 11:11:17PM 1 point [-]

This is really cool, Carl. Thanks for sharing. Do superforecasters ever make judgments about other x-risks?

Comment author: kbog  (EA Profile) 05 August 2018 11:53:14AM *  6 points [-]

For 5, the survey ( sort of ends all discussion about AI timelines. Not that it's necessarily right, just that no one is in a position to second-guess it.

For another relevant reason to think less about the future, take a look at this.

For 7, we can learn quite a bit from working on long term causes, and WASR is an example of that: it's stuff that won't be implemented any time soon, but we can gain feedback from the baby steps. The same thing has applied to some AI work.

Also, it seems to me that the kind of expertise here is highly domain-specific, and the lessons learned in one domain probably won't help elsewhere. I suppose that short term causes let you perform more trials after observing initial results, at least.

For 8, nontechnical people can work on political issues with long-term implications.

Lists of 10 are always fishy because the author is usually either stretching them out with poor reasons to make it to 10, or leaving out good reasons to keep it at 10. Try not to get attached to the number :)

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 05 August 2018 09:52:06PM 2 points [-]

I do agree WASR seems pretty tractable and the near-term learning value is pretty high even if we don't have a good idea of the long-term feasibility yet. I think it's promising, but I could also see it being ruled out as impactful, and I feel like we could have a good answer in a few years.

I don't have a good sense yet on whether something like AI research has a similar feel. If it did, I'd feel more excited about it.

View more: Next