Comment author: lukeprog 09 September 2017 10:14:14PM 2 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 1 point [-]

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?


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
Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 04 January 2017 05:32:42AM 1 point [-]

I would find HTTPS support useful.

Comment author: BenMillwood  (EA Profile) 21 August 2016 03:46:58PM 1 point [-]

I have a program (pandoc) which converts Markdown syntax to MediaWiki, so I can overcome (1), though it's admittedly awkward having to potentially copy changes back and forth. I believe (2) is not an issue as long as the license is clearly stated: the wiki footer only says "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported unless otherwise noted." (emphasis mine)

I'm happy to create the page and put the content on it and ferry any edits back into pull requests for you, provided there's no other reason you don't want me to do so? (you can PM me if you want)

(Now that I'm talking about this, I think what I'd really want would be something where you had the brief notes, but you could click to expand individual brief notes to full transcript where available. But neither of our venues are natively capable of that, I think.)

Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 21 August 2016 08:26:00PM 0 points [-]

I am fine with this plan. Feel free to reply here or message me directly if you run into difficulties or have any further questions.

Comment author: BenMillwood  (EA Profile) 20 August 2016 10:24:27AM *  0 points [-]

Maybe moving (or cross-posting) the transcripts to the EA wiki would be a better way to get people fleshing out details? GitHub doesn't make very small changes easy, especially if there's then a manual process (going through you) to have them synced here.

It's already happened once in these comments that someone has been curious about a section and gone to get a precise transcript of that section, it would be nice if these little pieces of work could be reflected immediately in the published document.

Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 21 August 2016 06:39:45AM 2 points [-]

Hi Ben, thanks for the suggestion. I would be fine with moving the active work to the EA Wiki, but I see two challenges: (1) the EA Wiki uses MediaWiki markup instead of Markdown; (2) the EA Wiki tends to use CC BY-SA instead of CC BY-NC-SA as its license, so GiveWell's original license would need to explicitly be maintained.

Comment author: MichaelDickens  (EA Profile) 18 August 2016 03:52:27AM 5 points [-]

Thanks for writing up these notes!

A meta-comment: I find your notetaking style somewhat hard to read. You shorten sentences in a way that removes important context. For example:

7:15: Male board member: Better understanding of staff work? Break down staff by function. 38 full-time staff. And between GW and Open Phil.

I take this to mean the male board member was saying something like "I would like to have a better understanding of staff work. Could you break down the staff according to their functions?" But it took me longer than I would like to interpret this—if you had written out full sentences, it would have been easier to read. This is small on its own but if I spend an extra few seconds trying to understand each line, it makes the post hard to read. I appreciate that you take the time to publish your notes; I would appreciate it even more if you took extra time to make the writing style more smooth.

Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 19 August 2016 02:24:55AM 2 points [-]

Thanks for the feedback, Michael.

I worked on this post under a fairly tight time constraint, so I was not able to clean it up in all the ways I would have liked to (including using full sentences, as you mention). There was also the concern that the post would be mostly ignored, causing my extra efforts to be wasted. Since this type of post seems to have generated a fair amount of interest, I would be willing to push for doing a cleaner job in the future.

Also, the source Markdown file for this post is available on GitHub, and, with the fairly permissive license, it would be possible for someone else to come along and fix things (or fund someone to do so); I would be happy to update this post to incorporate any significant improvements.


June 2016 GiveWell board meeting

Contents Summary Introduction Rough transcript Reelection of board members Budget discussion Staff growth and details of hiring method Executive compensation Relationship with Good Ventures Professionalization of the board Future of GiveWell Competitors to GiveWell GiveWell staff compensation Commentary Licensing Acknowledgements Summary I present a rough transcript of the June 2016... Read More
Comment author: riceissa  (EA Profile) 17 April 2016 05:37:31AM 5 points [-]

This is Issa Rice, one of the paid writers mentioned in this post. In addition to writing pages, I also provide feedback to some of the other paid writers on pages they are creating.

Working with Vipul has been a generally positive and enjoyable experience. He has deep knowledge of both the workings of Wikipedia as well as the topics on which he wants pages created (although this might be less true for some of the newer topics in this post). Prior to working for Vipul, I had virtually no experience editing Wikipedia pages. Vipul walked me through the basics (like making sure to create pages under one's user space, having enough citations, certain other rules for Wikipedia editing, and so forth—things that are not obvious for a new Wikipedia editor) so that I was soon able to begin creating pages. For each new topic I worked on (taxation, immigration, global health), Vipul has been willing to guide me through the basics, help find useful sources, and review the page before publication.

As someone who cares about his altruistic output and impact on the world, I'm still uncertain about the overall impact of writing for Wikipedia relative to other things I could be working on, but I think of working for Vipul as a fairly unique opportunity to gain experience and expertise on topics while getting paid.


An overview of Y Combinator’s non-profit program

Contents Summary Why look at Y Combinator? Background on Y Combinator’s non-profit program Y Combinator’s explicit reasoning Overview of actual non-profits Y Combinator has funded Comparison to GiveWell and the Open Philanthropy Project Document source and versions Acknowledgements License Summary I provide a brief overview of Y Combinator’s non-profit program... Read More

View more: Next