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.

Comment author: casebash 23 February 2018 03:35:54AM 2 points [-]

Out of curiosity, how many local groups already have paid organisers and how do you think this compares with an additional employee at a non-local EA org?

Comment author: casebash 15 February 2018 10:56:06PM *  0 points [-]

One of the biggest challenges is trying to even figure out how likely it is caused by something physical vs. a psychological root cause. It is a very controversial topic, to say the least. I spent about an hour looking into this, but I wasn't really able to get anywhere, at least without any knowledge of the field or where to find reliable information.

Comment author: RandomEA 04 February 2018 10:20:12PM 1 point [-]

You missed one key consideration. It could also redirect money from more efficient overseas charities to less efficient US charities and even if this was a small amount, it may still be net negative if the utility difference was large enough.

I believe this is number 2 under "Costs (if successful)."

Comment author: casebash 04 February 2018 10:23:25PM 0 points [-]

You're right. Edited my comment to note that this was actually addressed.

View more: Next