Comment author: RyanCarey 03 January 2015 03:29:30PM *  0 points [-]

This seems reasonable to me. Assuming aggregative ethics only and examining niche issues within it are probably not diplomatically ideal for this site. Especially when one could feasibly get just as much attention for this kind of post on LessWrong.

That'd suggest that if people want to write more material like this, it might fit better elsewhere. What do others think?

Comment author: casebash 24 August 2018 02:33:33PM 1 point [-]

These issues are relevant for any ethical system that assigns non-zero weight to the consequences.

Comment author: casebash 22 August 2018 03:05:00AM 0 points [-]

This seems like a huge amount of work for what seems like a somewhat uncertain impact.

Comment author: casebash 16 August 2018 01:27:20AM *  1 point [-]

EA grants seems like it should be in between in terms of being prescriptive vs. descriptive. If I had to pull a number out of a hat, then perhaps half the grants could be in the areas CEA considers most important and the other half could be more open.

Comment author: casebash 15 August 2018 12:02:14AM 0 points [-]

I still have doubts as to whether you should pay in Counterfactual Mugging since I believe that (non-quantum) probability is in the map rather than the territory. I haven't had the opportunity to write up these thoughts yet as my current posts are building up towards it, but I can link you when I do.

Comment author: LKor 09 August 2018 01:00:32PM *  2 points [-]

Ugg.. something smells fishy here.. : ) The numbers seem completely outlandish.. 1 - 10 billion for recreational fishing in the US? There are, what.. 300 - 500 million total population in the US, I believe? Even assuming 10% are into fishing, would they consume 1 billion bait fish?

I'm extremely skeptical of this and strongly inclined to make a bet against this info being accurate. Currently considering what exactly I'd be willing to put money down against. My intuition is that these figures might be off by a factor of ten or more.

Comment author: casebash 13 August 2018 06:16:45AM 0 points [-]

I am similarly suspicious. Someone should look into this more.

Comment author: SiebeRozendal 23 July 2018 12:51:03PM *  4 points [-]

Speculative feature request: anonymous commenting and private commenting

Sometimes people might want to comment anonymously because they want to say something that could hurt their reputation or relationships, or affect the response to the criticism in an undesirable way. For example,. OpenPhil staff criticising a CEA or 80K post would have awkward dynamics because OpenPhil funds these organizations partly. Having an option to comment anonymously (but let the default be with names) will allow more free speech.

Relatedly, some comments could be marked as "only readable by the author", because it's a remark about sensitive information. For example, feedback on someone's writing style or a warning about information hazards when the warning itself is also an information hazard. A risk of this feature is that it will be overused, which reduces how much information is spread to all the readers.

Meta: not sure if this thread is the best for these feature requests, but I don't know where else :)

Comment author: casebash 28 July 2018 02:11:20PM 0 points [-]

How anonymous would you want this to be? Like would the mods still know who posted it?

Comment author: casebash 05 July 2018 01:51:31AM 2 points [-]

Why do we need our own Leverage Research? What have they achieved?

Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 20 June 2018 06:22:12AM *  5 points [-]

(Context: I host the Cause Prioritization Wiki.)

I think there might be a misunderstanding here, so I would like to clarify a couple of things.

I also don't want the fact that one person has done the project at one point to mean that no one can ever do the project again.

I assume this is referring to me, and that Peter is saying the Cause Prioritization Wiki is dead. It's true that the wiki was inactive for about two years, but more recently I've been adding more content to it; there is an edit history graph showing activity for the past year.

But even assuming the wiki is dead, I'm not sure starting essentially from scratch is better than reviving the existing project.

We mainly chose to go with a different wiki software to improve the editing experience (especially editing without creating an account) to remove barriers to contribution.

The choices of wiki software and of allowing anonymous edits are not unchangeable. For the former, I've actually been pondering for a while whether switching to MediaWiki would be a good idea (I haven't looked into Wiki.js, which is what PriorityWiki uses), as I've gotten more experience with editing on MediaWiki wikis since the time when I started the Cause Prioritization Wiki. For the latter, my thinking has been that I don't want to spend a lot of time moderating the wiki, which is why I chose to restrict account creation and disable anonymous edits. But if there is enough energy to moderate the wiki, I would be fine with allowing more open editing.

Some thoughts I had about competition while thinking about this situation (I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this topic):

  • In general I think competition benefits end users.
  • There are four existing wikis about bitcoin that I know of, which might be an interesting case study:
  • With free software, forking is often difficult (existing codebase too complicated to understand, written for a different OS, written in a language that one is unfamiliar with) so there's a proliferation of similar applications. This seems to be less of a problem for prose.
  • Again with free software, different software projects focus on different (sometimes incompatible) things, like speed, feature-richness, memory use, portability. With a wiki, there is still some of that (one can trade off along formal vs informal language, background knowledge assumed, audience's goals) but I think it's less strong.
  • Again for software, there is also the issue of getting stuck in local optima (think how horrible LaTeX is but people are forced to use it). I think Wikipedia is similarly a local optimum for a generic encyclopedia, but this seems mostly problematic because of its deletionism.
  • For products that are sold there is also competition along price.
  • For textbooks, I think it's good that there are a bunch of them for each (topic, level) combination, because exposition style/difficulty can vary significantly. I think for general reference works there is a lot less of that, and even less for inclusionist electronic wikis.
Comment author: casebash 21 June 2018 12:03:30PM 7 points [-]

I suspect that competition isn't especially healthy at the stage where the struggle is just to obtain critical mass. Multiple projects have failed to generate enough momentum to sustain them, if the community divides its attention between multiple such projects, success is less likely.

10

Three levels of cause prioritisation

One of the main goals of Effective Altruism is to persuade people to think more deeply about how to prioritise causes. This naturally leads us to ask, "What is meant by cause prioritisation?" and "Which aspect of cause prioritisation is most important?". (Epistemic status: Speculative, Rough framework, see In Praise of... Read More
Comment author: casebash 05 April 2018 09:32:23PM 1 point [-]

I'd be very curious about what the HR professionals thought about giving feedback.

View more: Next