Cross-posted from my Substack.
Epistemic status: I’ve puzzled over this for a long time but I’m not sure I came to the right answers. I'm sharing this partly because it might help others work on resource allocation, but mostly because some smarter reader might tell me how to do it better.
TL;DR:
* I he...
With the AI windfall, mental health may be taken increasingly seriously by mainstream EA. There’s increasingly room to explore the cause area and answer some of the biggest uncertainties; at the same time, costs of the most effective interventions are continuing to fall. StrongMinds is now treating for ~$35, about a third of GiveWell’s best guess from a few years ago, and is expected to...
I'm grateful for the articles @MichaelStJules writes on the forum. He seems to be motivated by a deep desire to understand what will benefit moral patients.
For example, I particularly value his sequence on the impact of fishing on fish welfare (The moral ambiguity of fishing on wild aquatic animal populations and other articles)
+1! I especially appreciate how Michael often writes very detailed responses as part of extended back-and-forth-type comment threads. These contributions aren’t rewarded so much karma-wise, but I think they’re extremely valuable: I personally owe a good deal of what I understand about welfare, moral uncertainty, infinite ethics and theories of consciousness to comments I’ve read by Michael.
I really appreciate comments like this- thanks for posting it.
In general, I like the idea of letting people know when you value your writing. It encourages more of the content you'd like to see + most authors get complements rarely, so it's often greatly appreciated.
While I understand the intent behind publicly praising well-known contributors, I think we should consider the potential downsides. Heaping more praise on individuals who are already widely celebrated could be net negative, especially when there are many others who contribute valuable work but go largely ignored on the forum. This risks reinforcing a narrow focus on a few voices at the expense of elevating diverse perspectives and recognizing unsung contributors. Perhaps it would be more productive to highlight those who often don’t receive recognition but still make significant contributions.
Also, I believe you meant “compliments,” not “complements.”
I personally am a fan of the "both/and" approach to praise :)
I think your argument could go through if the person being praised was Holden, or Will MacAskill, or some other big name in EA. However, Michael seems pretty under the radar given the size of his contributions, so I don’t think your concerns check out in this case (and in fact this case might even align with your point about recognizing unsung contributors).
Thanks for writing this and for everyone else's support! ❤️
Yes, he's very motivated and truth-seeking!
I'm also a big fan, I was just saying to @Toby Tremlett🔹 earlier how I'm always excited when he comments on my stuff