Thanks Austin, I'll pass this on (I'm guessing this is a refactor bug)

cosigned, generally.

most strongly, i agree with:

• (1), (3), (4)

i also somewhat agree with:

• (2), (7), (8), (9)

[the rest of this comment is a bit emotional, a bit of a rant/ramble. i don't necessarily reflectively endorse the below, but i think it pretty accurately captures my state of mind while writing.]

but man, people can be mean. twitter is a pretty low bar, and although the discourse on twitter isn't exactly enjoyable, my impression of the EA forum has also gone down over the last few days. most of the comments that critique my/rachel's/austin's decisions (and many of the ones supporting our decisions!) have made me quite sad/anxious/ashamed in ways i don't endorse — and (most) have done ~nothing to reduce the likelihood that i invite speakers who the commenters consider racist to the next manifest.

i'm a little confused about the goals of a lot of the folks who're commenting. like, their (your?) marginal 20 minutes would be WAY more effective by... idk, hopping on a call with me or something?^[1]  [june23-2024 — edit: jeff's comment has explained why: yes, 1:1 discussion with me is better for the goal of improving/changing manifest's decisions, but many of the comments are "trying to hash out what EA community ... norms should be in this sort of situation, and that seems ... reasonably well suited for public discussion."]

there have been a few comments that are really great, both some that are in support of our decisions & some that are against them — austin highlighted a few that i had in mind, like Isa's and huw's. and, a few folks have reached out independently to offer their emotional support, which is really kind of them. these are the things that make me agree with (8): i don't think that, in many communities, folks who might disagree with me on the object level would offer their emotional support for me on the meta-level.

i'm grateful to the folks who're disagreeing (& agreeing) with me constructively; to everyone else... idk, man, at least hold off on commenting until you've given me a call or let me buy you a coffee or something. [june23-2024 — see edit above]

1. ^{^}

   and i would explicitly encourage you, dear reader, to do so! please! i would like to talk to you much more than i would like to read your comment on the EA forum, and way more than i'd like to read your twitter post! i would very much like to adjust my decision-making process to be better, and insofar as you think that's good, please do so through a medium that's much higher bandwidth!

I’d strongly recommend against inviting them. If they decide to come, then I’d probably let them, but intentionally bringing in people who want to stir up drama is a bad idea and would ruin the vibes.

Fwiw, I think the main thing getting missed in this discourse is that even 3 out of your 50 speakers (especially if they're near the top of the bill) are mostly known for a cluster of edgy views that are not welcome in most similar spaces, people who really want to gather to discuss those edgy and typically unwelcome views will be a seriously disproportionate share of attendees, and this will have significant repercussions for the experience of the attendees who were primarily interested in the other 47 speakers.

It's been confirmed that the donation matching still applies to early employees: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HE3Styo9vpk7m8zi4/evhub-s-shortform?commentId=oeXHdxZixbc7wwqna 

I would be surprised if the 3:1 match applied to founders as well. Also, I think 20% of employees donating 20% of their equity within the next 4 years is very optimistic.

My guess is that donations from Antrhopic/OpenAI will depend largely on what the founders decide to do with their money. Forbes estimates Altman and Daniela Amodei at ~$1B each, and Altman signed the Giving Pledge.

See also this article from Jan 8: 

At Anthropic’s new valuation, each of its seven founders — [...] — are set to become billionaires. Forbes estimates that each cofounder will continue to hold more than 2% of Anthropic’s equity each, meaning their net worths are at least $1.2 billion.

I don't think Forbes numbers are particularly reliable, and I think that there's a significant chance that Anthropic and/or OpenAI equity goes to 0; but in general, I expect founders to both have much more money than employees and be more inclined to donate significant parts of it (partly because of diminishing marginal returns of wealth)

For reference - malaria kills 600k a year. Covid has killed 6m to date.

If you believe creating an extra life is worth about the same as preventing an extra death (very controversial, but I hold something like this) then increasing fertility is an excellent cause area.

Edit: re: downvotes for OP: to clarify, I support the downvotes and don't endorse the premise of the question - damage to the Russian economy and its indirect health effects are not the dominant consideration here. Because Ukraine will suffer much more, the question's premise is naive and insensitive.  I tried to answer this because I wanted to show how much harm Putin inflicted on Russia by starting this war indirectly and which might outweigh the direct casualties on the Russian side. 

Countries usually value a QALY at 1-3x their GDP.

But also, GDP reduction and QALYs might not commensurable in that way...

I have a more detailed note on diminishing returns here. In brief, according to the law of logarithmic utility—a simple rule of thumb is that a dollar is worth 1/X times as much if you are X times richer. So doubling someone's income is worth the same amount no matter where they start. If GDP per capita is $10k, a $1 reduction is 10x less bad as at $1k mark. In other words, people will probably rather give up money than health on that current margin. 

But there are ways to calculate this and it's probably gonna be bad...

One Lancet study suggests that the 2008 economic crisis caused 0.5 million  excess cancer-related deaths worldwide. This is just cancer, which is about 15% of global mortality and so a naive extrapolation might suggest mortality figures in the millions. There are 50m deaths per year globally, so maybe there was a 10% increase.

Russia has about 2m deaths per year.

GDP loss is projected to be similar to 2008 or Covid.

https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/ 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673618314855 

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0140673618314855-mmc1.pdf