Comment author: [deleted] 17 August 2017 08:09:05PM *  4 points [-]

You may be interested in Owen's talk Prospecting for Gold. Among other things it has a mathematical formalisation of the ITN framework.

Comment author: RandomEA 17 August 2017 09:36:30PM *  6 points [-]

Here's a link to the talk for those without Facebook: (go to 21:00)

Here's a written version by 80,000 Hours:

Comment author: LawrenceC 05 August 2017 10:59:20PM 1 point [-]

What are concrete actions that you think EAs can do to help with this?

Comment author: RandomEA 06 August 2017 03:28:05AM 2 points [-]

If EAs decide to lobby state legislatures, they should focus on Pennsylvania and Florida, the two swing states where a significant proportion of voters use a Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machine without a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trial (VVPAT):

Comment author: RandomEA 05 August 2017 08:34:38PM 1 point [-]

One possible benefit of blood, kidney, and bone marrow donations is that they could demonstrate that EAs actually do care about other people in their country (which could help with movement building), but such donations can only be associated with EA if they are in fact effective on the margin (which does not seem to be the case with blood donations).

Comment author: Larks 27 July 2017 11:19:51PM *  3 points [-]
  1. C^^ is better than C^, which is better than C;
  2. C^^ is better than B;
  3. B is better than C and C^.

But these three rankings are inconsistent, and one of them should go. To endorse all of them means to breach transitivity. Is EA committed to rejecting transitivity? This view is very controversial, and if EA required it, this would need serious inquiry and defence.

These rankings do not seem inconsistent to me? C^^ > B > C^ > C

edit: substituted with '^' due to formatting issues.

Comment author: RandomEA 28 July 2017 03:28:40AM 1 point [-]

I also had some difficulty understanding what he was arguing here.


Does Effective Altruism Lead to the Altruistic Repugnant Conclusion?

Gianfranco Pellegrino has written an interesting essay arguing that effective altruism leads to what he calls the Altruistic Repugnant Conclusion. In this post, I will provide a brief version of his argument and then note one possible response. The Argument Pellegrino beings by identifying the following as the core tenet of effective... Read More
Comment author: Ben_Todd 11 July 2017 05:56:39AM *  4 points [-]

We're fiscally sponsored by CEA (so legally within the same entity) and have the same board of trustees, but we operate like a separate organisation.

Our career guide also doesn't mention EA until the final article, so we're not claiming that our views represent those of the EA movement. GWWC also doesn't claim on the website to represent the EA movement.

The place where moral exclusivity would be most problematic is But it mentions a range of causes without prioritising them, and links to this tool, which also does exactly what the original post recommends (and has been there for a year).

Comment author: RandomEA 11 July 2017 08:29:54PM 0 points [-]

I think it's actually mentioned briefly at the end of Part 5:

(In fact, the mention is so brief that you could easily remove it if your goal is to wait until the end to mention effective altruism.)

Comment author: RandomEA 03 July 2017 01:17:06AM 0 points [-]

Once you make the domain change, both and will redirect to Have you considered purchasing and redirecting it to to avoid any confusion?

Comment author: RandomEA 01 June 2017 08:23:37PM 5 points [-]

One option is to split the EA Community Fund into a Movement/Community Building Fund (which could fund organizations that engage in outreach, support local groups, build online platforms etc.) and a Cause/Means Prioritization Fund (which could fund organizations that engage in cause prioritization, explore new causes, research careers, study the policy process etc.).

Comment author: david_reinstein 20 May 2017 06:23:46PM 1 point [-]

That page is good, but it would be better if they could give an apples-to-apples comparison. There must be domestic US charities that aim to save lives domestically, from which a 'cost per life saved' estimate could be drawn. ... Or a developing country charity that provides a similar service as the US charities mentioned (education, neo-natal care, etc), from which many more people could be serverd for the same $.

Comment author: RandomEA 22 May 2017 12:17:47AM *  1 point [-]

I think the best comparison to the Against Malaria Foundation would be the Nurse Family Partnership (NFP), which also primarily benefits young children (albeit through a different intervention). Olds et al. (2014) reports the results of an RCT examining the effect of NFP on child mortality and maternal mortality,[1] and GiveWell has an (old) estimate of the cost per child served for the Nurse Family Partnership.[2] You could potentially use these two sources to arrive at a rough estimate of the cost per death averted for NFP.



Comment author: RandomEA 17 May 2017 02:39:43AM 1 point [-]

Do you happen to know what the most cost effective American charity is and how it compares to GiveDirectly? I think that information could be useful when making the case that it's better to focus on developing countries.

View more: Prev | Next