EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey
Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Slava Matyukhn1
0
0

Have you tried to refresh the page, or sign out and sign in again?

There's an auth issue where it might seem like you're signed in but really aren't. And the auth becomes stale every 24 hours, so it happens pretty frequently.

(Fix for this is in works but might take a few more weeks to deploy)

Reply
See in context
Tools for collaborative truth seeking
by brook, ChanaMessinger
3 min read 4

29

ForecastingTools for collaborative truth-seekingGuesstimatePersonal development
Personal Blog
Show all topics

Guesstimate is a quantitative model-building tool built to focus on uncertainty. The interface works the same as google sheets or excel; a grid of cells where data can be entered. Cells can then be referenced by other cells for calculations. 

This post is a text tutorial for guesstimate. The landing page for guesstimate also gives a rough idea of the point of the tool, and is a reasonable place to get a feel for if this is the right tool for the job.

When can Guesstimate be Useful?

  • Estimate Return on Investment for an EA intervention
  • Predict attendance of your EA group over the next year
  • Decide whether you should get a surgery or not
  • Pick which job you should take
  • Decide whether you should date somebody
  • Pick which microwave you should buy
  • Predict personal & business finances

Video Guide

Text Guide

Why use guesstimate?

Guesstimate has two key benefits over google sheets/excel:

  1. Each cell can have uncertainty
  2. Cell references are displayed visually (as well as in the formula of a cell)

This means that guesstimate is highly appropriate for fermi estimates, logic models, and any other format where you have uncertainty about some or all of the inputs, or of their effect sizes on the outputs. The visual nature of guesstimate also makes it easy to share; it’s easy to see how a model works.

If you prefer hands-on learning, a simple model to demonstrate the basic features is available here. 

Basic Guesstimate Functions

Double click anywhere empty in the grid to create a new cell. A cell has two attributes, a name and a value. A name should just help people (and you, in six months!) understand your model. The value can be of several types:

  • Single value (7000)
  • 90% Confidence interval (6 to 7[1])
  • Specific dataset (9.8, 17, 12, 34, -2, 113)
     

Formulae

Cells’ value can also reference other cells like other spreadsheets. Typing ‘=’ at the beginning of the value field tells guesstimate the value is a formula; you can then click any other cell to create a reference to it, and perform basic numerical operations or ‘if’ statements on them. 

While editing a formula, cells also show a three-letter reference at their top right, which you can type to manually refer to another cell. 

For a more in-depth guide, see the official documentation.

Worked Examples

Personal Experience

Personally, I find guesstimate models pretty intuitive to build & to interpret. I expect people who dislike visual information and/or have a lot of experience coding will find Squiggle more intuitive. 

Guesstimate also gets quite clunky and difficult to understand with larger models with many connections, as the screen becomes more clustered/it becomes difficult to decide where boxes belong (see e.g. this model). This can be mitigated by breaking the problem up into sensible modules/subsections that are given their own area or entire model. 

Try it Yourself!

With each post, I'm going to encourage you to give it a go! 

For guesstimate, I've picked a specific question to get things going; in future I'll try to encourage finding examples closer to your life. 

What is the total value of all the goods in a supermarket?

Spend 15-30 minutes making a guesstimate model to answer this question! Share your model in the comments as well as your experience of using guesstimate.

We're also running a short event in the EA GatherTown at 6pm GMT today to use Guesstimate, if you'd like to bring your model or make it during the session, or if you have any questions!

 

Tomorrow: Visualisation of Probability Mass, a neat little tool for changing visual intuitions into numbers, and vice versa. We'll be having a GatherTown event at the same time tomorrow!

  1. ^

    Can be normal, lognormal, or uniform distribution

29

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Previous:
Announcing Introductions for Collaborative Truth Seeking Tools
7 comments82 karma
Next:
Visualisation of Probability Mass
6 comments25 karma
Mentioned in
Comments4


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Bella2
0
0

Hey — this is probably totally the wrong place for this question, but, shrug.

I love Guesstimate. But right now I'm getting an 'ERROR SAVING' on all my models. It looks like this is a documented issue here but I couldn't find a fix. Any ideas?

Reply
ChanaMessinger2
0
0

Have passed on to the team!

Reply
Slava Matyukhn1
0
0

Have you tried to refresh the page, or sign out and sign in again?

There's an auth issue where it might seem like you're signed in but really aren't. And the auth becomes stale every 24 hours, so it happens pretty frequently.

(Fix for this is in works but might take a few more weeks to deploy)

Reply
Bella2
0
0

Hey — thanks, yeah, I did try that at the time but IIRC it didn't fix the issue. However the issue fixed itself in the following couple days, so, not sure what happened but I'm not getting the error!

Tysm for looking into it!

Reply
[comment deleted]1
0
0
Deleted by Slava Matyukhn,
More from brook
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."  This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country. The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.  It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions.  Here are the organizations I found that come closest: * Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms * PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements * Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
This is a cross post written by Andy Masley, not me. I found it really interesting and wanted to see what EAs/rationalists thought of his arguments.  This post was inspired by similar posts by Tyler Cowen and Fergus McCullough. My argument is that while most drinkers are unlikely to be harmed by alcohol, alcohol is drastically harming so many people that we should denormalize alcohol and avoid funding the alcohol industry, and the best way to do that is to stop drinking. This post is not meant to be an objective cost-benefit analysis of alcohol. I may be missing hard-to-measure benefits of alcohol for individuals and societies. My goal here is to highlight specific blindspots a lot of people have to the negative impacts of alcohol, which personally convinced me to stop drinking, but I do not want to imply that this is a fully objective analysis. It seems very hard to create a true cost-benefit analysis, so we each have to make decisions about alcohol given limited information. I’ve never had problems with alcohol. It’s been a fun part of my life and my friends’ lives. I never expected to stop drinking or to write this post. Before I read more about it, I thought of alcohol like junk food: something fun that does not harm most people, but that a few people are moderately harmed by. I thought of alcoholism, like overeating junk food, as a problem of personal responsibility: it’s the addict’s job (along with their friends, family, and doctors) to fix it, rather than the job of everyday consumers. Now I think of alcohol more like tobacco: many people use it without harming themselves, but so many people are being drastically harmed by it (especially and disproportionately the most vulnerable people in society) that everyone has a responsibility to denormalize it. You are not likely to be harmed by alcohol. The average drinker probably suffers few if any negative effects. My argument is about how our collective decision to drink affects other people. This post is not
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Today, Forethought and I are releasing an essay series called Better Futures, here.[1] It’s been something like eight years in the making, so I’m pretty happy it’s finally out! It asks: when looking to the future, should we focus on surviving, or on flourishing? In practice at least, future-oriented altruists tend to focus on ensuring we survive (or are not permanently disempowered by some valueless AIs). But maybe we should focus on future flourishing, instead.  Why?  Well, even if we survive, we probably just get a future that’s a small fraction as good as it could have been. We could, instead, try to help guide society to be on track to a truly wonderful future.    That is, I think there’s more at stake when it comes to flourishing than when it comes to survival. So maybe that should be our main focus. The whole essay series is out today. But I’ll post summaries of each essay over the course of the next couple of weeks. And the first episode of Forethought’s video podcast is on the topic, and out now, too. The first essay is Introducing Better Futures: along with the supplement, it gives the basic case for focusing on trying to make the future wonderful, rather than just ensuring we get any ok future at all. It’s based on a simple two-factor model: that the value of the future is the product of our chance of “Surviving” and of the value of the future, if we do Survive, i.e. our “Flourishing”.  (“not-Surviving”, here, means anything that locks us into a near-0 value future in the near-term: extinction from a bio-catastrophe counts but if valueless superintelligence disempowers us without causing human extinction, that counts, too. I think this is how “existential catastrophe” is often used in practice.) The key thought is: maybe we’re closer to the “ceiling” on Survival than we are to the “ceiling” of Flourishing.  Most people (though not everyone) thinks we’re much more likely than not to Survive this century.  Metaculus puts *extinction* risk at about 4
Relevant opportunities
6
AI Researcher Surveys with Similar Results to Katja Grace, 2024?
Q
AlexChalk
· · 1m read
1
1
6
Market Pulse Challenge 25Q3, $7,500 Prize Pool
christian
· · 1m read
0
0
89
Not inevitable, not impossible
LewisBollard
· · 4m read
3
3
View more