Comment author: oagr 27 November 2017 02:20:17AM 1 point [-]

Thanks for taking the time to write this up, and especially for being so honest about it. Almost all new experiments are going to be failures, but the vast majority kinda get disguised as possible successes or totally swept under the rug. I would imagine that one of the most important things this point is that neither one of you get demotivated.

Comment author: oagr 25 November 2017 11:04:09PM 1 point [-]

I'm kinda surprised I haven't seen more information about deliberate practice as a manager. The specific issue mentioned here seems to be predictions made around people. Maybe in 10 years AI systems will be better than top managers are doing the sort of thing?

2

Emotion Inclusive Altruism vs. Emotion Exclusive Altruism

Summary: People discussing common acts of altruism and those arguing against it’s existence are using different definitions of altruism.   Cross-posted to my medium blog .  You smell fire, run outside, see a burning building, hear a child screaming, run inside the building, grab child, run out, and the building... Read More
Comment author: oagr 27 September 2016 05:15:22AM 3 points [-]

Great work, I'm really looking forward to following your progress!

Comment author: HowieL 17 August 2016 01:53:59PM 2 points [-]

I agree that thinking explicitly about the goals of the conference would be good. Fwiw, though, my instinct is that trying to quantify it into an EV estimate would be a bit of a distraction from the main benefits.

Comment author: oagr 19 August 2016 03:00:52AM *  0 points [-]

In my experience, in the cases where there are EV calcs, few people will pay attention to them anyway, though the ones that do seem to find them interesting & useful. It could be a distraction to the people who make it, but I don't see it being harmful to more than 10 people (in the worst 10th percentile).

Comment author: MichaelPlant 18 August 2016 08:38:34AM 0 points [-]

I cautiously like this idea. I wonder if it's potentially a distraction where people end up spending lots of time trying to prove, or defend, their estimates, rather than give their talks.

Also tricky is the fact expected value estimates require you to take explicit stands of values that might not be very productive. i.e.you get this estimate for the Against Malaria Foundation if you think future people are X important, this is you think death is Y bad, etc.

Comment author: oagr 19 August 2016 02:58:51AM 0 points [-]

I think we as a society (or intellectual circle) have a long way to go in terms of understanding EV calcs, but would say here that EV calcs don't have to be relative to total utility. They could instead be split up into parts in cases where there is uncertainty in how to resolve it from there.

For instance, saying that this intervention 'saves 1 life per 10k to 30k dollars in region X' seems fine to me, if it's a fair interval/estimate. If there are multiple things, maybe, "Every 10k dollars saves 10-30 QALYS in the next 3 years, and separately seems to decrease the long term risks by Y factor"

Comment author: HowieL 17 August 2016 01:56:50PM 0 points [-]

Huh. I don't know anything at all about design or branding but I thought the EAG website made a step toward minimalism this year. The about page seems pretty minimalist at least. http://eaglobal.org/about

If it's easy to describe, I'd be curious about what aspects of the page were not minimalist. Is it primarily the pictures?

Comment author: oagr 19 August 2016 02:54:32AM 1 point [-]

For one thing, minimalism isn't normal and this isn't a criticism but just a suggestion. Very few brands are minimalist, and with reason. This is less about specific picture choices, more about the use of color and the presence of pictures.

You're right that that one page is somewhat minimalist, but other pages and design elements are less so. (like the home page, and others with maps and globes and the universe in the background).

The banners and logos definitely didn't seem particularly minimalist.

These guys have something I would consider a minimalist brand (which is fitting for them): http://www.theminimalists.com/

Comment author: SoerenMind  (EA Profile) 15 August 2016 07:02:25AM 0 points [-]

Wait, where do you watch the EAG videos? They're old ones I presume?

Comment author: oagr 16 August 2016 12:37:47AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: oagr 13 August 2016 05:21:53AM -1 points [-]

A ban on misused words like 'need' (in talks)

I'm watching a few EAG videos now and repeatedly witness the word 'need' get used for things. Like, "our industry needs people to research topic X", or "we need more money to field X".

I'm still not sure what need actually means, but have found that when it's used it's often essentially a logical fallacy. For instance, compare the phrase, "we need people to research topic X", with the phrase, "we believe there's a level of cost-effective opportunity for research topic X".

"Need" is not really a falsifiable or arguable word and generally makes things seem more important than they actually are.

There's a lot of BS that goes on in the typical conference circuit. The EA events bring in speakers of other events who bring in a lot of this with them. I would propose that we shouldn't allow this to be an excuse for poor thinking, and should instead act as encouragement to these people to be more honest, at least for EA events. It could also help as a reminder for how dishonest other events are.

Comment author: oagr 13 August 2016 05:26:18AM 0 points [-]

I could also imagine one way of dealing with this ban while also not requiring revisions by people with standard talks, would be to have different classes of talks. Talks given by EAs, and talks given by people who do not agree with the main set of EA principles. At least this would make it obvious and get the same point across.

Comment author: oagr 13 August 2016 05:21:53AM -1 points [-]

A ban on misused words like 'need' (in talks)

I'm watching a few EAG videos now and repeatedly witness the word 'need' get used for things. Like, "our industry needs people to research topic X", or "we need more money to field X".

I'm still not sure what need actually means, but have found that when it's used it's often essentially a logical fallacy. For instance, compare the phrase, "we need people to research topic X", with the phrase, "we believe there's a level of cost-effective opportunity for research topic X".

"Need" is not really a falsifiable or arguable word and generally makes things seem more important than they actually are.

There's a lot of BS that goes on in the typical conference circuit. The EA events bring in speakers of other events who bring in a lot of this with them. I would propose that we shouldn't allow this to be an excuse for poor thinking, and should instead act as encouragement to these people to be more honest, at least for EA events. It could also help as a reminder for how dishonest other events are.

View more: Next