Working on forecasting infrastructure under grants from the EA Long-Term Future Fund and BERI. Those were counterfactually important for lots of stuff I write.
Not addressing video recordings specifically; but we might run future iterations of this bootcamp if there's enough interest, it goes well and it continues to seem valuable. So feel free to submit the application form while noting you're only interested in future cohorts.
To really make this update, I'd want some more bins than the ones Nuno provide. That is, there could be an "extremely more successful than expected" bin; and all that matters is whether you manage to get any grant in that bin.
(For example, I think Roam got a grant in 2018-2019, and they might fall in that bin, though I haven't thought a lot about it.)
Counterpoint: yes, Facebook has lots of public image issues. As a result, we have good evidence that they're an org that's unusually resistant to such problems!
They've been having scandals since they were founded. And in spite of all the things you mention, their market cap has almost doubled since the bottom of the Cambridge Analytica fall-out.
They're also one of the world's most valuable companies, and operate in a sector (software) that on an inside view seems well poised to do well in future (unlike, say, Berkshire Hathaway, which has about the same market cap).
You might have concerns about having a non-diversified portfolio in general. But modulo that, I honestly think Facebook seems like a pretty good bet.
I'm also posting a bounty for suggesting good candidates: $1000 for successful leads on a new project manager; $100 for leads on a top 5 candidate
DETAILS
I will pay you $1000 if you:
Send us the name of a person…
…who we did not already have on our list…
…who we contacted because of your recommendation...
...who ends up taking on the role
I will pay you $100 if the person ends up among the top 5 candidates (by our evaluation), but does not take the role (given the other above constraints).
There’s no requirement for you to submit more than just a name. Though, of course, providing intros, references, and so forth, would make it more likely that we could actually evaluate the candidate.
NO bounty will be awarded if you...
Mention the person who actually gets hired, but I never see your message
Mention a person who does not get hired/become a top 5 candidate
Nominate yourself and get hired
If multiple people nominate the same person, bounty goes to the first person whose nomination we actually read and act on
Remaining details will be at our discretion. Feel free to ask questions in comments.
Ought (~$5000) and Rethink Priorities (~$500) have both done it, with bounties roughly what I indicated (though I'm a bit uncertain). Don't think either has completed the relevant hiring rounds yet.
The John Hopkins disease prediction project lists 3 questions. You have to sign up to view them. (I also think you can't see the crowd average before you've made your prediction.)
The John Hopkins disease prediction project lists 3 questions. You have to sign up to view them. (I also think you can't see the crowd average before you've made your prediction.)
This set-up does seem like it could be exploitable in an adversarial manner... but my impression from reading the poll results, is that this is weak evidence against that actually being a failure mode -- since it doesn't seem to have happened.
I didn't notice any attempts to frame a particular person multiple times. The cases where there were repeated criticism of some orgs seemed to plausibly come from different accounts, since they often offered different reasons for the criticism or seemed stylistically different.
Moreover, if asked beforehand about the outcomes of something that can be read as "an open invitation to anonymous trolling that will get read by a huge amount of people in the movement"... I would have expected to see things way, way worse than what I actually saw. In fact, I've seen many public and identifiable comments sections on Facebook, YouTube or Twitter that were much worse than this anonymous poll.
(I claim these things weakly based on having read through all the responses in the sheet. I didn't analyse them in-depth with an eye to finding traces of adversarial action, and don't expect my approach here would have caught more sophisticated attempts.)
Not addressing video recordings specifically; but we might run future iterations of this bootcamp if there's enough interest, it goes well and it continues to seem valuable. So feel free to submit the application form while noting you're only interested in future cohorts.
I was a grantee in 2019 and consent to having my evaluation shared publicly, if Nuno wants to post it.
To really make this update, I'd want some more bins than the ones Nuno provide. That is, there could be an "extremely more successful than expected" bin; and all that matters is whether you manage to get any grant in that bin.
(For example, I think Roam got a grant in 2018-2019, and they might fall in that bin, though I haven't thought a lot about it.)
Counterpoint: yes, Facebook has lots of public image issues. As a result, we have good evidence that they're an org that's unusually resistant to such problems!
They've been having scandals since they were founded. And in spite of all the things you mention, their market cap has almost doubled since the bottom of the Cambridge Analytica fall-out.
They're also one of the world's most valuable companies, and operate in a sector (software) that on an inside view seems well poised to do well in future (unlike, say, Berkshire Hathaway, which has about the same market cap).
You might have concerns about having a non-diversified portfolio in general. But modulo that, I honestly think Facebook seems like a pretty good bet.
Conditional on OpenAI API generating at least $100M in total revenue for OpenAI, by what year will that happen?
(You might also want to combine this with an estimate of the binary variable of whether it will generate $100M in revenue at all.)
I'm also posting a bounty for suggesting good candidates: $1000 for successful leads on a new project manager; $100 for leads on a top 5 candidate
DETAILS
I will pay you $1000 if you:
I will pay you $100 if the person ends up among the top 5 candidates (by our evaluation), but does not take the role (given the other above constraints).
There’s no requirement for you to submit more than just a name. Though, of course, providing intros, references, and so forth, would make it more likely that we could actually evaluate the candidate.
NO bounty will be awarded if you...
Remaining details will be at our discretion. Feel free to ask questions in comments.
You can private message me here.
Ought (~$5000) and Rethink Priorities (~$500) have both done it, with bounties roughly what I indicated (though I'm a bit uncertain). Don't think either has completed the relevant hiring rounds yet.
In addition, I'll mention:
Here's a list of public forecasting platforms where participants are tracking the situation:
Foretold is tracking ~20 questions and is open to anyone adding their own, but doesn't have very many predictions.
Metaculus is tracking a handful questions and has a substantial number of predictions.
The John Hopkins disease prediction project lists 3 questions. You have to sign up to view them. (I also think you can't see the crowd average before you've made your prediction.)
This set-up does seem like it could be exploitable in an adversarial manner... but my impression from reading the poll results, is that this is weak evidence against that actually being a failure mode -- since it doesn't seem to have happened.
I didn't notice any attempts to frame a particular person multiple times. The cases where there were repeated criticism of some orgs seemed to plausibly come from different accounts, since they often offered different reasons for the criticism or seemed stylistically different.
Moreover, if asked beforehand about the outcomes of something that can be read as "an open invitation to anonymous trolling that will get read by a huge amount of people in the movement"... I would have expected to see things way, way worse than what I actually saw. In fact, I've seen many public and identifiable comments sections on Facebook, YouTube or Twitter that were much worse than this anonymous poll.
(I claim these things weakly based on having read through all the responses in the sheet. I didn't analyse them in-depth with an eye to finding traces of adversarial action, and don't expect my approach here would have caught more sophisticated attempts.)