Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 18 September 2018 04:54:48AM 11 points [-]

I have two questions:

  1. Is there a full list of grantees and respective grant amounts for the referral-based round?

  2. Is there some sort of evaluation process for funded projects that have concluded? I am curious especially about the outcomes of the projects that were funded in the 2017 round (that have now had the money for about a year). This question was asked about a year ago, but the details seemed uncertain at the time so I am re-asking the question.

Comment author: michaelchen 26 August 2018 02:31:30AM *  1 point [-]

Sheon Han made something called Awesome Effective Altruism about a year ago, although I don't see it anymore. Is this related to that?

EDIT: looks like someone made a copy of it at https://github.com/ShriSamson/awesome-effective-altruism

Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 26 August 2018 04:35:51AM 1 point [-]

Sheon Han's repository was made private. There are more more discussion threads here.

Comment author: Milan_Griffes 21 August 2018 05:55:28PM 1 point [-]

Cool project! I'm impressed by the thoroughness of the lists.

This will take a lot of ongoing attention to keep up-to-date. Are you planning to do list maintenance as ongoing volunteer work? Are you intending to seek funding for ongoing maintenance?

Also, who do you have in mind as your intended customer?

Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 25 August 2018 02:07:44AM *  3 points [-]

So far almost all DLW work by me has been contract work paid by Vipul, and my guess is it will stay like this for the foreseeable future. We have not sought other sources of funding, but are interested in receiving funding (for my ongoing work).

As mentioned in the post, the intended audience is something like "people who think about effective giving, flow of money in the non-profit world, real-world decision making, and similar topics". To give some examples:

  • Ryan Carey has a GitHub repository with data analysis of Open Phil's grants data. (Last updated 2018-02-11.)
  • Here is another example, but part of a closed Facebook group so I won't describe it. (Probably last updated around 2018-01-14.)
  • Michael Dickens wrote a post entitled "Where Some People Donated in 2017" recording where some EA and EA-peripheral people donated. (Last updated 2018-02-14.)
  • In June 2017, there was a Facebook event called "What's Up With the Open Philanthropy Project?" The event looked at some of Open Phil's work, compiling some documents about some of Open Phil's grants in the process. Looking at the timestamps, I think the Google Docs were created when the meetup began, and were filled in during the course of the meetup. (Last updated 2017-06-09.)

I think in all the above cases, either the current version of DLW or an improved version in the future performs a superset of the data collection/analysis, is continually updated, and provides a single location for all the data and analysis.

Vipul has also made comments (1, 2) and at least one post using in part data collected by DLW, to make observations or answer people's questions.

6

Donations List Website: tutorial and request for feedback

Contents Introduction Tutorial Main page Donor page Donee page Donor–donee page Influencer page Cause area filter About page Request for feedback Did you already know about DLW? Do you use it for anything? Potential improvements – what are your thoughts? Add more foundation giving data Add more individual giving data... Read More
Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 08 August 2018 05:42:11AM *  5 points [-]

Anders Sandberg's Flickr account has a 2014 photo of a whiteboard from FHI containing estimates for the following statements/questions:

  • Probability that >50% of humans will die in a disaster in next 100 years
  • Are we living in a computer simulation created by some advanced civilization?
  • Your credence that humanity goes extinct in the next 100 years – replacing us with something better (e.g. WBE) doesn't count
  • Your credence that AGI is developed by 2050 (on Earth)

The photo caption is:

Office guesses at (A) a disaster killing 50%+ of humanity in the next century, (B) our reality turning out to be a simulation, (C) extinction within a century, and (D) artificial general intelligence before 2050.

This is based on earlier Aumann agreement experiments we did. Credences are free to update as we see each other's views, as well as get new evidence.

There are two other photos showing parts of the same (or similar) whiteboard.

HT: Louis Francini for originally pointing me to these photos.

Comment author: rohinmshah  (EA Profile) 30 October 2017 12:45:33AM 1 point [-]

As one data point, I did not have this association with "impressions" vs. "beliefs", even though I do in fact distinguish between these two kinds of credences and often report both (usually with a long clunky explanation since I don't know of good terminology for it).

Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 29 June 2018 10:20:42PM 2 points [-]

To add to the list of references in this thread, Brian Tomasik talks about this in "Gains from Trade through Compromise" in the section "Epistemic prisoner's dilemma".

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 19 June 2018 07:53:39PM 4 points [-]

Good question. The answer is that I'm not sure yet how to handle that.

I agree I don't want there to be five different prioritization wikis, but 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. It's hard to strike the right balance there.

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. We could potentially start migrating content whichever way makes sense.

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: lukeprog 09 September 2017 10:14:14PM 3 points [-]

Back in ~2014, I remember doing a survey of top-contributing MIRI donors over the previous 3 years and a substantial fraction (1/4th?) had first encountered MIRI or EA or whatever through HPMoR. Malo might have the actual stats. It might even be in a MIRI blog post footnote somewhere.

But w.r.t. to research impact, someone could make a list of the 25 most useful EA researchers, or the 15 most useful "AI safety" researchers, or whatever kind of research you most care about, and find out what fraction of them were introduced to x-risk/EA/rationality/whatever through HPMoR.

I don't have a good sense for the what the net impact is.

Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 13 September 2017 05:39:32PM 3 points [-]

Re top MIRI donors, there is a 2013 in review post that talks about a survey of "(nearly) every donor who gave more than $3,000 in 2013" with four out of approximately 35 coming into contact via HPMoR. (Not to imply that this is the survey mentioned above, as several details differ.)

Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 11 June 2017 02:38:30AM 6 points [-]

How does this compare to EA Ventures?

10

Essay contest: general considerations for evaluating small-scale giving opportunities ($300 for winning submission)

Contents Introduction Past and related discussions Submission process Prize Judgment Vetting the funders Precedent Results Note: this contest has ended. See § Results below. Introduction This is an announcement that Vipul Naik, Peter Hurford, and I are holding an essay contest to solicit general considerations on how to evaluate small-scale... Read More

View more: Next