thankyou!I keeppointing out that EVF doesn't have anything on their website about who their trustees are, and this isn't good for transparency.
As much as I appreciate this post, it seems to have followed the same process I have - asked 'ok who actually are these senior figures?', and realised that for some, there's not much info out there, and then gathered what little there is on google search and linkedin.
It would be great if the lesser-known EVF trustees could describe, in their own words, who they are, what they do, and how someone could contact them.
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]
I think this hints at a divide between EA and progressive thinking.
EAs: we only have a set amount of money for food causes, we need to use it effectively
Progressives: just allocate more money to good causes (like treating AIDS) and less on bad causes (like defense spending)
I often hear EA/ rationalists saying something like 'it's not worth spending an hour to save £20, if your hourly rate of pay is over £20/ hour. I think this is wrong, but I might not understand the argument.
It could be understood as a hypotherical argument, you COULD earn this much in an hour, as a reference point to help you understand the value of your time. This hypothetical reference point isn't really useful, when I have the very real figure of my total balance, and upcoming outgoings to consider, and the factor of whether I can afford to spend on things I enjoy, if I don't save money now.
So, it could be a suggestion that I actually could work an extra hour for money. But I (and almost everyone I know) don't get paid hourly. I have a fixed amount of hours, she working over that doesn't gain me more money. To gain more, I'd need to set up a freelance/ side business, and there's all sorts of initial costs with getting that setup and advertising my services, and reporting my income for tax, and so on and so on.
Lastly, 'you could work an extra hour' doesn't factor in my enjoyment. Working an extra hour would have a negative effect on my mood. I don't want to work more than i already do. By contrast, walking an hour to save an Uber fee would be good for my mood, and health.
I agree with that rough claim. And I liked the rest of the blog.
I guess I do see people who are struggling behaving badly sometimes. I just don't think it's in any more frequent than the general population. Or I see sometimes see them using the fact they're struggling to justify their bad behaviour, and I don't buy that.
I downvoted this post. I really don't like the first two paragraphs.
Something I've noticed recently is that people who are in a bad place in their lives tend to have a certain sticky sleazy black holey feel to them. Something around untrustworthiness, low integrity, optimizing for themselves regardless of the cost for the people around them.
To me, this reads as an unhelpful demonization of those who are struggling in life. At the far end of the spectrum, it could be something as serious as depression, which is already demonized.
I also don't think it's accurate. Anecdotally, I've never experienced those who are struggling to be any less trustworthy than those who are 'ok'.
Then, it's just reasonable to only be loyal to others as long as you can get something out of it yourself and to defect as soon as they don't offer obvious short-term gains.
I also think this is wrong. True, people who are struggling may rely more on others for help, than they offer back to others. But if anything, I've found people who are struggling exhibit more of behaviour that tracks with something like 'loyalty'. They tend to rely more on close friends and family, and do less speculative social gains-seeking exploration.
I don't see how any reason to think that being a in a bad place leads to low integrity behaviour, and certainly not SBF-style bad behaviour.
Apologies in advance if I've misunderstood the point being made here.
Is there any consensus on who's making things safer, and who isn't? I find it hard to understand the players in this game, it seems like AI safety orgs and the big language players are very similar in terms of their language, marketing and the actual work they do. Eg openAI talk about ai safety in their website and have jobs on the 80k job board, but are also advancing ai rapidly. Lately it seems to me like there isn't even agreement in the ai safety sphere over what work is harmful and what isn't (I'm getting that mainly from the post on closing the lightcone office)
Hi Howie, I'm getting back to this 3 months later. I don't think this feature has been added and I'd like to raise again that it would be good for transparency. The link to the CEA team page doesn't have bios for Tasha McCauley and Becca Kagan (who has since resigned from EVF, I guess it could be worth listing former board members).
My sincere apologies, I had missed that it had been updated! V. Embarrassing. Thankyou for doing that
thankyou! I keep pointing out that EVF doesn't have anything on their website about who their trustees are, and this isn't good for transparency.
As much as I appreciate this post, it seems to have followed the same process I have - asked 'ok who actually are these senior figures?', and realised that for some, there's not much info out there, and then gathered what little there is on google search and linkedin.
It would be great if the lesser-known EVF trustees could describe, in their own words, who they are, what they do, and how someone could contact them.
I thought the bottom half was an OK response.- 'We have long term plans and value healthy funding' (paraphrasing)
I think this hints at a divide between EA and progressive thinking. EAs: we only have a set amount of money for food causes, we need to use it effectively Progressives: just allocate more money to good causes (like treating AIDS) and less on bad causes (like defense spending)
Objections to 'value of my time arguments'
I often hear EA/ rationalists saying something like 'it's not worth spending an hour to save £20, if your hourly rate of pay is over £20/ hour. I think this is wrong, but I might not understand the argument.
It could be understood as a hypotherical argument, you COULD earn this much in an hour, as a reference point to help you understand the value of your time. This hypothetical reference point isn't really useful, when I have the very real figure of my total balance, and upcoming outgoings to consider, and the factor of whether I can afford to spend on things I enjoy, if I don't save money now.
So, it could be a suggestion that I actually could work an extra hour for money. But I (and almost everyone I know) don't get paid hourly. I have a fixed amount of hours, she working over that doesn't gain me more money. To gain more, I'd need to set up a freelance/ side business, and there's all sorts of initial costs with getting that setup and advertising my services, and reporting my income for tax, and so on and so on.
Lastly, 'you could work an extra hour' doesn't factor in my enjoyment. Working an extra hour would have a negative effect on my mood. I don't want to work more than i already do. By contrast, walking an hour to save an Uber fee would be good for my mood, and health.
I agree with that rough claim. And I liked the rest of the blog.
I guess I do see people who are struggling behaving badly sometimes. I just don't think it's in any more frequent than the general population. Or I see sometimes see them using the fact they're struggling to justify their bad behaviour, and I don't buy that.
I downvoted this post. I really don't like the first two paragraphs.
To me, this reads as an unhelpful demonization of those who are struggling in life. At the far end of the spectrum, it could be something as serious as depression, which is already demonized.
I also don't think it's accurate. Anecdotally, I've never experienced those who are struggling to be any less trustworthy than those who are 'ok'.
I also think this is wrong. True, people who are struggling may rely more on others for help, than they offer back to others. But if anything, I've found people who are struggling exhibit more of behaviour that tracks with something like 'loyalty'. They tend to rely more on close friends and family, and do less speculative social gains-seeking exploration.
I don't see how any reason to think that being a in a bad place leads to low integrity behaviour, and certainly not SBF-style bad behaviour.
Apologies in advance if I've misunderstood the point being made here.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/oGdCtvuQv4BTuNFoC/good-things-that-happened-in-ea-this-year
Is there any consensus on who's making things safer, and who isn't? I find it hard to understand the players in this game, it seems like AI safety orgs and the big language players are very similar in terms of their language, marketing and the actual work they do. Eg openAI talk about ai safety in their website and have jobs on the 80k job board, but are also advancing ai rapidly. Lately it seems to me like there isn't even agreement in the ai safety sphere over what work is harmful and what isn't (I'm getting that mainly from the post on closing the lightcone office)
Hi Howie, I'm getting back to this 3 months later. I don't think this feature has been added and I'd like to raise again that it would be good for transparency. The link to the CEA team page doesn't have bios for Tasha McCauley and Becca Kagan (who has since resigned from EVF, I guess it could be worth listing former board members).