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.


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.

Comment author: itty 26 March 2018 06:33:00PM 4 points [-]

The job description for Research Analyst says that the best candidates will have "comfort thinking in terms of expected value and using systematic, quantitative frameworks." How quantitative should a candidate be to apply? For example, if a person feels comfortable with basic expected value concepts but finds GiveWell's CEA overwhelming (and probably could never produce something similar to GiveWell's CEA), is that not quantitative enough?

Comment author: casebash 28 March 2018 01:59:58PM 2 points [-]

What's Givewell's CEA?

Comment author: casebash 28 March 2018 01:56:39PM *  -2 points [-]

Meta: It might be good to announce AMA's in advance so that more people know to be online at that time.

Comment author: Halstead 23 March 2018 05:20:46PM 1 point [-]

termination shock: the worry that after SAI is deployed, it is for some reason stopped suddenly, leading to rapid and large warming. Unilteral deployment: the worry that a state or other actor would deploy SAI unilaterally in a way that would damage other states

The concern I have about interstate conflict is that: SAI will have to be deployed for decades up to a century to provide benefits. Over this period, there would need to be global agreement on SAI - a technology that would have divergent regional climatic effects. If there are adverse weather events (caused by SAI or not) victims would be angry and this could heighten interstate tension. Generally, maintaining agreement on something like that for decades seems like it would be really hard.

Comment author: casebash 24 March 2018 08:03:26AM 0 points [-]

Thanks very much!

Comment author: casebash 21 March 2018 01:00:23AM *  2 points [-]

I'd really appreciate a sentence or two on each of the following questions:

  • What is termination shock risk?
  • What is the main concern with unilateral deployment?
  • What is the worry re: interstate conflict?
Comment author: casebash 28 February 2018 10:32:13PM 2 points [-]

"The number of new event attendees, for a given group, who were not familiar with EA beforehand was even more striking. Here none of the largest groups were among the top groups" - too many new group members at once is not good for a group. Have you heard of the Eternal September effect?

Comment author: MarkusAnderljung 23 February 2018 08:07:29AM *  6 points [-]

The org's I can remember off the top of my head are: EA Sweden (that's me), EA Geneva, EA London, EA China, EA Netherlands (used to have full-time staff, but don't anymore) and EA Australia.

I'm excluding CEA, EAF and Rethink Charity here.

Comment author: casebash 23 February 2018 09:32:47PM 2 points [-]

My understanding is that EA Australia is hiring, but they don't have anyone yet.

View more: Next