This is a special post for quick takes by JamesN. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
I'm considering my future donation options, either directly to charities or through a fund. I know EA Funds is still somewhat cash constrained but I'm also a little concerned with the natural variance in grant quality.
I'd be interested in why others have or have not chosen to donate to EA Funds, and if so, would they again in the future?
I respect people may prefer to answer this by DM, so please do feel free to drop me a message there if posting here feels uncomfortable.
What are some of the best (relatively) small podcasts on AI and/or policy that people would recommend? I know of all the big ones, but keen to see if there are any nascent ones that are worth sharing with others.
Do EA funding organisations have contingency plans (I use the term loosely) to manage downside risks to cash-flow in the eventuality of a recession? With the possibility of a recession in the coming 6-18 months seemingly increasing, it would be prudent to model the scenarios and think through how to smooth the funding profile if needed. Given cash is already constrained post the collapse of "that will shall not be named", it feels a recession (and thus implications to donations/value of investments etc.) could compound existing funding issues. I don't expect to get a financial plan from any of the big funders, but I thought worth raising the question in the low probability scenario it isn't already part of their modelling.
Don't know about Open Phil and other EA funders specifically, but I believe a number of endowments/ foundations base their distributions off a three-year rolling average of assets. To the extent that is the case here, that practice gives some significant lead time before there is a meaningful reduction in grants.
Funding to EA orgs has roughly halved in the last year, so a recession would barely be noticed!
More broadly, the point you make is valid. One of the reasons I’ve stayed earning to give is that I’ve never been confident in the stability of EA funding over my future career.
In the latest quarterly survey by The Wall Street Journal, business and academic economists lowered the probability of a recession within the next year, from 54% on average in July to a more optimistic 48%. That is the first time they have put the probability below 50% since the middle of last year.
The median probability was 50%, in effect a coin flip.
Very fair identification of some sloppy wording by me there with "increasing". Apologies, my main focus was on the relatively high risk. Though as you've noted the WSJ survey had a median probability of 50%, and Forbes (link below) notes the NY Fed recession probability indicator is at 56% (albeit decreased from its previous 66%) - an unusually accurate indicator. Assessments which should be making central banks and economic ministries a little nervous.
Even with some forecasters reducing their probabilities, the relative risk and high level of uncertainties underpinning them would suggest to me it'd be a good time to review plans to weather any downturn.
As my toddler continues to grow, my wife and I are reaching the point that all parents do (if not already done) where we have to decide what to do about his education. Obviously education and life aren't fixed so there is always a necessary amount of flexibility to any decision.
My issue (UK focus): Broadly there are three stages in the UK - 1) nursery, 2) primary school, 3) secondary/high school. With the world becoming increasingly uncertain and complex, I have very little confidence that any current institution (in stage 2 and 3) is set up and run well enough to prepare a child for the future - beyond the basic reading and writing skills. As a small example for instance, there is a shocking lack of investment in both resources and capability on key topics such as computer science, maths, engineering, rationality, and political science. However, given this is a quick post I won't go into the depth of my reasoning of why I feel there is a structural problem with the education system that would be almost impractical (or at least, too politically costly) to resolve. To add some potential credence, this isn't just wandering thoughts but they have been generated through the experiences of multiple family (including my wife) and friends who work/worked in primary or secondary schools.
My question: What are others' thoughts on this (both parents and non-parents)? Do you have similar concerns? Do you not? If you do, what are your intended actions to mitigate?
I certainly would like to equip my toddler with more maths (and preferably computer science) skills than we see in schools. I was planning to remedy this by taking more time on teaching her the content myself (assuming she's willing!) I appreciate this won't work for everyone -- it's time-consuming and not every parent has great maths.
I'm hoping that I will be able to get into a routine of regular maths fun with Daddy. At first this will be the basics (my daughter can't talk yet, so she still has a lot to learn!), and then over time moving on to more advanced things. At the moment she loves it and eagerly asks for maths, so I'm hoping that will last.
We play maths games on the computer. She's enthusiastic about them, but I'm far from confident that it's improving her numerical capabilities. Some evidence in favour of it is that she can now say the number "two" -- this doesn't impressive, but she has very few words at the moment. At least it's more likely to help than harm (I suspect) and at worst it's daddy-daughter bonding time.
Similarly dice seem to be entertaining for her, so I got hold of educational ten-sided dice, and I'm still experimenting how best to use them.
I have ideas for fun things to do together when she's older, which I'm currently keeping track of in this document.
Rough thoughts and musings, not to be taken too seriously.
Some subjects (computer science, engineering, political science) are often only taught starting at the university level. This isn't to say that no pre-university education ever involves these, but they are generally at a much more watered down level (such as social studies or a class called western civilization compared to political science). I think that the standard approach for parents who want their keeps to be exposed to these areas is to do it yourself, rather than relying on the school system. Nudge your child toward these things outside of the formal education system. Weekend classes, summer camps, or simply having a habit at home where you read books on a particular topic together. I do think it would be better if pre-university education did a great job of exposing students to various subjects and giving them to opportunity to explore them more. Especially on subjects like rationality and decision-making.
You might want to look into the book Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids; part of it touches on how little our attempts to shape children actually matter. I'm not a parent yet, but this book gave me a good nudge to plan on more children than I was previously planning on.
Another thought: many subjects (such as computer science, engineering, a particular foreign language, roman history, political science) will be practically useless to many people, depending on what their interests are and what kind of a career they have. Would the world be a better place if everyone understood the basics of two dozen different fields? I think it would. But for many people that wouldn't be of any real benefit.
With a number of charity evaluators recommendations coming out over the last few days/weeks, has there been any further development on AI safety/GCR evaluator(s)? A need that was raised in the post below (I don't know if best EA forum practice is to ressurrect an old thread or not, so I apologies if it's better I just comment in there).
I'm considering my future donation options, either directly to charities or through a fund. I know EA Funds is still somewhat cash constrained but I'm also a little concerned with the natural variance in grant quality.
I'd be interested in why others have or have not chosen to donate to EA Funds, and if so, would they again in the future?
I respect people may prefer to answer this by DM, so please do feel free to drop me a message there if posting here feels uncomfortable.
What are some of the best (relatively) small podcasts on AI and/or policy that people would recommend? I know of all the big ones, but keen to see if there are any nascent ones that are worth sharing with others.
Do EA funding organisations have contingency plans (I use the term loosely) to manage downside risks to cash-flow in the eventuality of a recession? With the possibility of a recession in the coming 6-18 months seemingly increasing, it would be prudent to model the scenarios and think through how to smooth the funding profile if needed. Given cash is already constrained post the collapse of "that will shall not be named", it feels a recession (and thus implications to donations/value of investments etc.) could compound existing funding issues. I don't expect to get a financial plan from any of the big funders, but I thought worth raising the question in the low probability scenario it isn't already part of their modelling.
Don't know about Open Phil and other EA funders specifically, but I believe a number of endowments/ foundations base their distributions off a three-year rolling average of assets. To the extent that is the case here, that practice gives some significant lead time before there is a meaningful reduction in grants.
Funding to EA orgs has roughly halved in the last year, so a recession would barely be noticed! More broadly, the point you make is valid. One of the reasons I’ve stayed earning to give is that I’ve never been confident in the stability of EA funding over my future career.
Say more?
From The Wall Street Journal:
Very fair identification of some sloppy wording by me there with "increasing". Apologies, my main focus was on the relatively high risk. Though as you've noted the WSJ survey had a median probability of 50%, and Forbes (link below) notes the NY Fed recession probability indicator is at 56% (albeit decreased from its previous 66%) - an unusually accurate indicator. Assessments which should be making central banks and economic ministries a little nervous.
Even with some forecasters reducing their probabilities, the relative risk and high level of uncertainties underpinning them would suggest to me it'd be a good time to review plans to weather any downturn.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/is-a-recession-coming/
No worries. I don't want to nitpick. The concern you're raising sounds reasonable.
As my toddler continues to grow, my wife and I are reaching the point that all parents do (if not already done) where we have to decide what to do about his education. Obviously education and life aren't fixed so there is always a necessary amount of flexibility to any decision.
My issue (UK focus): Broadly there are three stages in the UK - 1) nursery, 2) primary school, 3) secondary/high school. With the world becoming increasingly uncertain and complex, I have very little confidence that any current institution (in stage 2 and 3) is set up and run well enough to prepare a child for the future - beyond the basic reading and writing skills. As a small example for instance, there is a shocking lack of investment in both resources and capability on key topics such as computer science, maths, engineering, rationality, and political science. However, given this is a quick post I won't go into the depth of my reasoning of why I feel there is a structural problem with the education system that would be almost impractical (or at least, too politically costly) to resolve. To add some potential credence, this isn't just wandering thoughts but they have been generated through the experiences of multiple family (including my wife) and friends who work/worked in primary or secondary schools.
My question: What are others' thoughts on this (both parents and non-parents)? Do you have similar concerns? Do you not? If you do, what are your intended actions to mitigate?
I certainly would like to equip my toddler with more maths (and preferably computer science) skills than we see in schools. I was planning to remedy this by taking more time on teaching her the content myself (assuming she's willing!) I appreciate this won't work for everyone -- it's time-consuming and not every parent has great maths.
I'm hoping that I will be able to get into a routine of regular maths fun with Daddy. At first this will be the basics (my daughter can't talk yet, so she still has a lot to learn!), and then over time moving on to more advanced things. At the moment she loves it and eagerly asks for maths, so I'm hoping that will last.
I have ideas for fun things to do together when she's older, which I'm currently keeping track of in this document.
Rough thoughts and musings, not to be taken too seriously.
Some subjects (computer science, engineering, political science) are often only taught starting at the university level. This isn't to say that no pre-university education ever involves these, but they are generally at a much more watered down level (such as social studies or a class called western civilization compared to political science). I think that the standard approach for parents who want their keeps to be exposed to these areas is to do it yourself, rather than relying on the school system. Nudge your child toward these things outside of the formal education system. Weekend classes, summer camps, or simply having a habit at home where you read books on a particular topic together. I do think it would be better if pre-university education did a great job of exposing students to various subjects and giving them to opportunity to explore them more. Especially on subjects like rationality and decision-making.
You might want to look into the book Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids; part of it touches on how little our attempts to shape children actually matter. I'm not a parent yet, but this book gave me a good nudge to plan on more children than I was previously planning on.
Another thought: many subjects (such as computer science, engineering, a particular foreign language, roman history, political science) will be practically useless to many people, depending on what their interests are and what kind of a career they have. Would the world be a better place if everyone understood the basics of two dozen different fields? I think it would. But for many people that wouldn't be of any real benefit.
With a number of charity evaluators recommendations coming out over the last few days/weeks, has there been any further development on AI safety/GCR evaluator(s)? A need that was raised in the post below (I don't know if best EA forum practice is to ressurrect an old thread or not, so I apologies if it's better I just comment in there).
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/QahDdRzpPuat8ujx2/why-isn-t-there-a-charity-evaluator-for-longtermist-projects