Yes, letting them specifically set a distribution, especially as this was implicitly done anyways in the data analysis, would have been better. We'd want to normalise this somehow, either by trusting and/or checking that it's a plausible distribution (i.e. sums to 1), or by just letting them rate things on a scale of 1-10 and then getting an implied "distribution" from that.
Interestingly, the increase in perceived comfort with entrepreneurial projects is larger for every org than that for research. Perhaps the (mostly young) fellows generally just get slightly more comfortable with every type of thing as they gain experience.
However, this is additional evidence that ERI programs are not increasing fellows' self-perceived comfort with research any more than they increase fellows' comfort with anything. It would be interesting to see if mentors of fellows think they have improved overall; it may be that changes in self-perception and actual skill don't correlate very much.
And also note that fellows consistently ranked the programs as providing on average slightly higher research skill gain than standard academic internships (average 5.7 on a 1-10 scale where 5 = standard academic internship skill gain, see ""perceived skills and skill changes" section).
I can think of many possible theories, including:
fellows don't become more comfortable with research despite gaining competence at it because the competence does not lead to feeling good at research (e.g. maybe they update towards research being hard, or there is some form of Dunning-Kruger type thing here, or they already feel pretty comfortable as you mention); therefore self-rated research comfort is a bad indicator and we might instead try e.g. asking their mentors or looking at some other external metric
fellows don't actually get better at research, but still rate it as a top source of value because they want to think they did, and their comfort with research not staying the same is a more reliable indicator than them marking it as a top source of value (and also they either have a low opinion of skill gain from standard academic internships, or then haven't experienced those and are just (pessimistically) imagining what it would be like)
The main way to answer this seems to be getting a non-self-rated measure of research skill change.
For "virtual/intellectual hub", the central example in my mind was the EA Forum, and more generally the way in which there's a web of links (both literal hyperlinks and vaguer things) between the Forum, EA-relevant blogs, work put out by EA orgs, etc. Specifically in the sense that if you stumble across and properly engage with one bit of it, e.g. an EA blog post on wild animal suffering, then there's a high (I'd guess?) chance you'll soon see a lot of other stuff too, like being aware of centralised infrastructure like the Forum and 80k advising, and becoming aware of the central ideas like cause prio and x-risk. Therefore maybe the virtual/physical distinction was a bit misleading, and the real distinction is more like "Schelling point for intellectual output / ideas" vs "Schelling point for meeting people".
That being said, a point that comes to mind is that geographic dispersion is one of the most annoying things for real-world Schelling points and totally absent* if you do it virtually, so maybe there's some perspective like "don't think about EAGx Virtual as recreating an EAG but virtually, but rather as a chance to create a meeting-people-Schelling-point without the traditional constraints, and maybe this ends up looking more ambitious"?
(*minus timezones, but you can mail people melatonin beforehand :) )
I mentioned the danger of bringing in people mostly driven by personal gain (though very briefly). I think your point about niche weirdo groups finding some types of coordination and trust very easy is underrated. As other posts point out the transition to positive personal incentives to do EA stuff is a new thing that will cause some problems, and it's unclear what to do about it (though as that post also says, "EA purity" tests are probably a bad idea).
I think the maximally-ambitious view of the EA Schelling point is one that attracts anyone who fits into the intersection of altruistic, ambitious / quantitative (in the sense of caring about the quantity of good done and wanting to make that big), and talented/competent in relevant ways. I think hardcore STEM weirdness becoming a defining EA feature (rather than just a hard-to-avoid incidental feature of a lot of it) would prevent achieving this.
In general, the wider the net you want to cast, the harder it is to become a clear Schelling point, both for cultural reasons (subgroup cultures tend more specific than their purpose strictly implies, and broad cultures tend to split), and for capacity reasons (it's harder to get many than few people to hear about something, and also simple practical things like big conferences costing more money and effort).
There is definitely an entire different post (or more) that could be written about how much and which parts of EA should be Schelling point or platform -type thing and comparing the pros and cons. In this post I don't even attempt to weigh this kind of choice.
I agree that in practice x-risk involves different types of work and people than e.g. global poverty or animal welfare. I also agree that there is a danger of x-risk / long-termism cannibalizing the rest of the movement, and this might easily lead to bad-on-net things like effectively trading large amounts of non-x-risk work for very little x-risk / long-termist work (because the x-risk people would have done found their work anyway had x-risk been a smaller fraction of the movement, but as a consequence of x-risk preeminence a lot of other people are not sufficiently attracted to even start engaging with EA ideas).
However, I worry about something like intellectual honesty. Effective Altruism, both the term and the concept, are about effective forms of helping other people, and lots of people keep coming to the conclusion that preventing x-risks is one of the best ways of doing so. It seems almost intellectually dishonest to try to cut off or "hide" (in the weak sense of reducing the public salience of) the connection. One of the main strengths of EA is that it keeps pursuing that whole "impartial welfarist good" thing even if it leads to weird places, and I think EA should be open about the fact that it seems weird things follow from trying to do charity rigorously.
I think ideally this looks like global poverty, animal welfare, x-risk, and other cause areas all sitting under the EA umbrella, and engaged EAs in all of these areas being aware that the other causes are also things that people following EA principles have been drawn towards (and therefore prompted to weigh them against each other in their own decisions and cause prioritization). Of course this also requires that one cause area does not monopolize the EA image.
I agree with your concern about the combination seeming incongruous, but I think there are good ways to pitch this while tying them all into core EA ideas, e.g. something like:
If you start thinking quantitatively about how to do the most good, you might realize that some especially promising ways of doing good are are cases where
-there is clear evidence that a small amount of money goes far, like helping extremely poor people in developing countries
-some suffering has clearly not historically been taken into account, like animal welfare
-the stakes are absolutely huge, like plausible catastrophes that might affect the entire world
I think you also overestimate the cultural congruence between non-x-risk causes like, for example, global poverty and animal welfare. These concerns span from hard-nosed veteran economists who think everything vegan is hippy nonsense and only people matter morally, to young non-technical vegans with concern for everything right down to worms. Grouping these causes together only looks normal because you're so used to EA.
(likewise, I expect low weirdness gradients between x-risk and non-x-risk causes, e.g. nuclear risk reduction policy and developing-country economic development, or GCBRs and neglected diseases)
There is currently an active cofounder matching process going on for an organisation to do this, expected to finish in late mid-June and with work starting at the latest a month or two later. Feel free to DM me or Marc-Everin Carauleanu (who independently submitted this idea to the FTX FF idea competition) if you want to know more.
Anything concrete about the exact nature of what service alignment researchers most need, how much this problem is estimated to block progress on alignment, pros and cons of existing orgs each having their own internal service for this, and how large the alignment-related data market are very welcome.
I spoke with Yonatan at EAGx Oxford. Yonatan was very good at drilling down to the key uncertainties and decision points.
The most valuable thing was that he really understood the core "make something that people really want" lesson for startups. I thought I understood this (and at least on some abstract level did), but after talking with Yonatan I now have a much stronger model of what it actually takes to make sure you're doing this in the real world, and a much better idea of what the key steps in a plan between finding a problem and starting a company around it should be.
Research that will help us improve, Epistemic Institutions, Empowering Exceptional People
It is well-known that the incentive structure for academic publishing is messed up. Changing publish-or-perish incentives is hard. However, one particular broken thing is that some journals operate on a model where they rent out their prestige to both authors (who pay to have their works accepted) and readers (who pay to read), extracting money from both while providing little value except their brand. This seems like a situation that could be disrupted, though probably not directly through competing on prestige with the big journals. Alternatives might look like something simple like expanding the scope of free preprint services like arXiv to bioRxiv to every field, or something more complicated like providing high-quality help and services for paper authors to incentivize them to submit to the new system. If established, a popular and prestigious academic publishing system would also be a good platform from which to push other academia-related changes (especially incentivizing the right kinds of research).
Works of art (e.g. stories, music, visual art) can be a major force inspiring people to do something or care about something. Prizes can directly lead to work (see for example the creative writing contest), but might also have an even bigger role in defining and promoting some type of work or some quality in works. Creating a (for example) annual prize/award scheme might go a long way towards defining and promoting an EA-aligned genre (consider how the existence of Hugo and Nebula awards helps define and promote science fiction). The existence of a prestigious / high-paying prize for the presence of specific qualities in a work is also likely to draw attention to those qualities more broadly; news like "Work X wins award for its depiction of [thoughtful altruism] / [the long-term future] / [epistemic rigor under uncertainty]" might make those qualities more of a conversation topic and something that more artists want to depict and explore, with knock-on effects for culture.
The existing set of social media platforms is not particularly diverse, and existing platforms also often create negative externalities: reducing productive work hours, plausibly lowering epistemic standards, and increasing signalling/credentialism (by making easily legible credentials more important, and in some cases reducing the dimensionality of competition, e.g. LinkedIn reducing people to their most recent jobs and place of study, again making the competition for credentials in those things harsher). An enormous amount of value is locked away because valuable connections between people don't happen.
It might be very high-value to search through the set of possible social platforms and try to find ones that (1) make it easy to find valuable connections (hiring, co-founders, EA-aligned people, etc.) and trust in the people found through that process, (2) provide incentives to help other people and do useful things, and (3) de-emphasize unhealthy credentialism.
Yes, letting them specifically set a distribution, especially as this was implicitly done anyways in the data analysis, would have been better. We'd want to normalise this somehow, either by trusting and/or checking that it's a plausible distribution (i.e. sums to 1), or by just letting them rate things on a scale of 1-10 and then getting an implied "distribution" from that.
I agree that this is confusing. Also note:
And also note that fellows consistently ranked the programs as providing on average slightly higher research skill gain than standard academic internships (average 5.7 on a 1-10 scale where 5 = standard academic internship skill gain, see ""perceived skills and skill changes" section).
I can think of many possible theories, including:
The main way to answer this seems to be getting a non-self-rated measure of research skill change.
For "virtual/intellectual hub", the central example in my mind was the EA Forum, and more generally the way in which there's a web of links (both literal hyperlinks and vaguer things) between the Forum, EA-relevant blogs, work put out by EA orgs, etc. Specifically in the sense that if you stumble across and properly engage with one bit of it, e.g. an EA blog post on wild animal suffering, then there's a high (I'd guess?) chance you'll soon see a lot of other stuff too, like being aware of centralised infrastructure like the Forum and 80k advising, and becoming aware of the central ideas like cause prio and x-risk. Therefore maybe the virtual/physical distinction was a bit misleading, and the real distinction is more like "Schelling point for intellectual output / ideas" vs "Schelling point for meeting people".
That being said, a point that comes to mind is that geographic dispersion is one of the most annoying things for real-world Schelling points and totally absent* if you do it virtually, so maybe there's some perspective like "don't think about EAGx Virtual as recreating an EAG but virtually, but rather as a chance to create a meeting-people-Schelling-point without the traditional constraints, and maybe this ends up looking more ambitious"?
(*minus timezones, but you can mail people melatonin beforehand :) )
I mentioned the danger of bringing in people mostly driven by personal gain (though very briefly). I think your point about niche weirdo groups finding some types of coordination and trust very easy is underrated. As other posts point out the transition to positive personal incentives to do EA stuff is a new thing that will cause some problems, and it's unclear what to do about it (though as that post also says, "EA purity" tests are probably a bad idea).
I think the maximally-ambitious view of the EA Schelling point is one that attracts anyone who fits into the intersection of altruistic, ambitious / quantitative (in the sense of caring about the quantity of good done and wanting to make that big), and talented/competent in relevant ways. I think hardcore STEM weirdness becoming a defining EA feature (rather than just a hard-to-avoid incidental feature of a lot of it) would prevent achieving this.
In general, the wider the net you want to cast, the harder it is to become a clear Schelling point, both for cultural reasons (subgroup cultures tend more specific than their purpose strictly implies, and broad cultures tend to split), and for capacity reasons (it's harder to get many than few people to hear about something, and also simple practical things like big conferences costing more money and effort).
There is definitely an entire different post (or more) that could be written about how much and which parts of EA should be Schelling point or platform -type thing and comparing the pros and cons. In this post I don't even attempt to weigh this kind of choice.
I agree that in practice x-risk involves different types of work and people than e.g. global poverty or animal welfare. I also agree that there is a danger of x-risk / long-termism cannibalizing the rest of the movement, and this might easily lead to bad-on-net things like effectively trading large amounts of non-x-risk work for very little x-risk / long-termist work (because the x-risk people would have done found their work anyway had x-risk been a smaller fraction of the movement, but as a consequence of x-risk preeminence a lot of other people are not sufficiently attracted to even start engaging with EA ideas).
However, I worry about something like intellectual honesty. Effective Altruism, both the term and the concept, are about effective forms of helping other people, and lots of people keep coming to the conclusion that preventing x-risks is one of the best ways of doing so. It seems almost intellectually dishonest to try to cut off or "hide" (in the weak sense of reducing the public salience of) the connection. One of the main strengths of EA is that it keeps pursuing that whole "impartial welfarist good" thing even if it leads to weird places, and I think EA should be open about the fact that it seems weird things follow from trying to do charity rigorously.
I think ideally this looks like global poverty, animal welfare, x-risk, and other cause areas all sitting under the EA umbrella, and engaged EAs in all of these areas being aware that the other causes are also things that people following EA principles have been drawn towards (and therefore prompted to weigh them against each other in their own decisions and cause prioritization). Of course this also requires that one cause area does not monopolize the EA image.
I agree with your concern about the combination seeming incongruous, but I think there are good ways to pitch this while tying them all into core EA ideas, e.g. something like:
I think you also overestimate the cultural congruence between non-x-risk causes like, for example, global poverty and animal welfare. These concerns span from hard-nosed veteran economists who think everything vegan is hippy nonsense and only people matter morally, to young non-technical vegans with concern for everything right down to worms. Grouping these causes together only looks normal because you're so used to EA.
(likewise, I expect low weirdness gradients between x-risk and non-x-risk causes, e.g. nuclear risk reduction policy and developing-country economic development, or GCBRs and neglected diseases)
There is currently an active cofounder matching process going on for an organisation to do this, expected to finish in late mid-June and with work starting at the latest a month or two later. Feel free to DM me or Marc-Everin Carauleanu (who independently submitted this idea to the FTX FF idea competition) if you want to know more.
Anything concrete about the exact nature of what service alignment researchers most need, how much this problem is estimated to block progress on alignment, pros and cons of existing orgs each having their own internal service for this, and how large the alignment-related data market are very welcome.
I spoke with Yonatan at EAGx Oxford. Yonatan was very good at drilling down to the key uncertainties and decision points.
The most valuable thing was that he really understood the core "make something that people really want" lesson for startups. I thought I understood this (and at least on some abstract level did), but after talking with Yonatan I now have a much stronger model of what it actually takes to make sure you're doing this in the real world, and a much better idea of what the key steps in a plan between finding a problem and starting a company around it should be.
New academic publishing system
Research that will help us improve, Epistemic Institutions, Empowering Exceptional People
It is well-known that the incentive structure for academic publishing is messed up. Changing publish-or-perish incentives is hard. However, one particular broken thing is that some journals operate on a model where they rent out their prestige to both authors (who pay to have their works accepted) and readers (who pay to read), extracting money from both while providing little value except their brand. This seems like a situation that could be disrupted, though probably not directly through competing on prestige with the big journals. Alternatives might look like something simple like expanding the scope of free preprint services like arXiv to bioRxiv to every field, or something more complicated like providing high-quality help and services for paper authors to incentivize them to submit to the new system. If established, a popular and prestigious academic publishing system would also be a good platform from which to push other academia-related changes (especially incentivizing the right kinds of research).
Regular prizes/awards for EA art
Effective Altruism
Works of art (e.g. stories, music, visual art) can be a major force inspiring people to do something or care about something. Prizes can directly lead to work (see for example the creative writing contest), but might also have an even bigger role in defining and promoting some type of work or some quality in works. Creating a (for example) annual prize/award scheme might go a long way towards defining and promoting an EA-aligned genre (consider how the existence of Hugo and Nebula awards helps define and promote science fiction). The existence of a prestigious / high-paying prize for the presence of specific qualities in a work is also likely to draw attention to those qualities more broadly; news like "Work X wins award for its depiction of [thoughtful altruism] / [the long-term future] / [epistemic rigor under uncertainty]" might make those qualities more of a conversation topic and something that more artists want to depict and explore, with knock-on effects for culture.
Prosocial social platforms
Epistemic institutions, movement-building, economic growth
The existing set of social media platforms is not particularly diverse, and existing platforms also often create negative externalities: reducing productive work hours, plausibly lowering epistemic standards, and increasing signalling/credentialism (by making easily legible credentials more important, and in some cases reducing the dimensionality of competition, e.g. LinkedIn reducing people to their most recent jobs and place of study, again making the competition for credentials in those things harsher). An enormous amount of value is locked away because valuable connections between people don't happen.
It might be very high-value to search through the set of possible social platforms and try to find ones that (1) make it easy to find valuable connections (hiring, co-founders, EA-aligned people, etc.) and trust in the people found through that process, (2) provide incentives to help other people and do useful things, and (3) de-emphasize unhealthy credentialism.