Hide table of contents

Project basics

I’ve been funded by the Future Fund Regranting Program to start a series of magazine-style profiles of people doing interesting EA work, called “Humans of Effective Altruism.”

[Recommend someone here]

The idea is to write these for an audience of both EAs and non-EAs, with the idea of giving people tangible examples of interesting and effective career paths and/or life paths. 

I’d like to get into the nitty-gritty of what people do day to day, and also dig into who they are as people, ‘what makes them tick’.

I’ll be publishing them on this Substack. I anticipate most interviews will be done remotely, but if someone is in NYC, where I am, I’d somewhat prefer an in-person meeting, to give the profile color.

I’m now looking for recommendations for who to write about.

You can use this Google form, comment on this post, DM me, or email me at humansofea@gmail.com.

Please err on the side of suggesting anyone you think would make an interesting profile subject! It’s better for me to have more people to consider, and probably at least some people suggested/recommended won’t want to be profiled, so I’d love to have a very long list of options.

That said, I basically have 3 criteria:

3 criteria

  1. They are doing high-impact activities (probably their job, but not necessarily). One motivation for this project is to give people considering life-options tangible examples of net-positive things to do.
  2. MOST IMPORTANTLY, they have an especially interesting personal story, especially if it relates to how they think about their work, or they’re just an especially interesting person.
  3. And, obviously, they must be open to being profiled, and are willing to get at least a little personal.

I’m also open to the idea of a profile of more than one person (a collective, a charity, a purpose-driven group house), but I don’t expect these to be the majority of the profiles.

Self-recommendations A-okay.

Thanks in advance.

[Recommend someone here]

Further details about process

  • I’d prefer to have a preliminary chat without committing to writing up a full profile
  • Different profiles may take on different shapes. Some may be long, some short. Some may involve multiple interviews, some just one. Because of this, it’s possible (though maybe somewhat unlikely) that a ‘preliminary chat’ could be the entire process, which get processed into a short profile.

Further details about how I'm thinking about the project

  • Basically, prioritizing an interesting story is a bid to attract the attention of a wider, non-EA audience
  • Slight preference for profile subjects for whom there’s something the reader could do when they finish reading, a specific action they could take if they were inspired by this person, to help their specific cause, over and above ‘get [more] into EA’
  • Preference for someone who represents an idea, and/or whose story illustrates a broader point

Recommend someone

Recommend someone here.

Subscribe / Follow

Subscribe to the Substack here to get the first profile in your inbox.

Follow on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook

Comments8


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Some cool people from the Spanish-Speaking community:

  • The coordinator Sandra Malagón, who in the space of one year has kickstarted an EA hub in Mexico and helped raise a community in Chile and Colombia.
  • Pablo Melchor, founder of Ayuda Efectiva, the Spanish GiveWell
  • Melanie Basnak, senior research manager at Rethink Priorities
  • Juan García, researcher at ALLFED, who works in food security
  • Ángela María Aristizábal, researcher at FHI, who works in GCRs and community building
  • Pablo Stafforini, who built the EA Forum Wiki, is involved in many cool projects and has been involved since the very beginning of EA
  • Michelle Bruno, an early career person who works now in community building in Mexico and in a biosecurity project
  • Jaime Fernández who works in community building in Colombia and is researching some philosophy topics
  • Laura González, who co-coordinates the Spanish speaking community and leads the Spanish translation project.

Amazing, thanks!

How long will you be checking that link? Say  a new person comes onto my radar 6 months from now, will it still be relevant to submit a rec via that link?

6 months should be good. Not sure exactly how long it'll be going but I hope to keep it going much longer than that. Will update here if anything changes

[anonymous]8
0
0

For some geographic diversity and people recently up for being interviewed, could be worth scanning https://resources.eagroups.org/running-a-group/groups-spotlight

This looks great, thanks!

You’ve probably already seen it but linking it just in case: the Future Perfect 50

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23399287/future-perfect-50-change-agents#package-toc

This is helpful, thanks!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Once we expand to other star systems, we may begin a self-propagating expansion of human civilisation throughout the galaxy. However, there are existential risks potentially capable of destroying a galactic civilisation, like self-replicating machines, strange matter, and vacuum decay. Without an extremely widespread and effective governance system, the eventual creation of a galaxy-ending x-risk seems almost inevitable due to cumulative chances of initiation over time across numerous independent actors. So galactic x-risks may severely limit the total potential value that human civilisation can attain in the long-term future. The requirements for a governance system to prevent galactic x-risks are extremely demanding, and they need it needs to be in place before interstellar colonisation is initiated.  Introduction I recently came across a series of posts from nearly a decade ago, starting with a post by George Dvorsky in io9 called “12 Ways Humanity Could Destroy the Entire Solar System”. It’s a fun post discussing stellar engineering disasters, the potential dangers of warp drives and wormholes, and the delicacy of orbital dynamics.  Anders Sandberg responded to the post on his blog and assessed whether these solar system disasters represented a potential Great Filter to explain the Fermi Paradox, which they did not[1]. However, x-risks to solar system-wide civilisations were certainly possible. Charlie Stross then made a post where he suggested that some of these x-risks could destroy a galactic civilisation too, most notably griefers (von Neumann probes). The fact that it only takes one colony among many to create griefers means that the dispersion and huge population of galactic civilisations[2] may actually be a disadvantage in x-risk mitigation.  In addition to getting through this current period of high x-risk, we should aim to create a civilisation that is able to withstand x-risks for as long as possible so that as much of the value[3] of the univers
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
If you are planning on doing AI policy communications to DC policymakers, I recommend watching the full video of the Select Committee on the CCP hearing from this week.  In his introductory comments, Ranking Member Representative Krishnamoorthi played a clip of Neo fighting an army of Agent Smiths, described it as misaligned AGI fighting humanity, and then announced he was working on a bill called "The AGI Safety Act" which would require AI to be aligned to human values.  On the Republican side, Congressman Moran articulated the risks of AI automated R&D, and how dangerous it would be to let China achieve this capability. Additionally, 250 policymakers (half Republican, half Democrat) signed a letter saying they don't want the Federal government to ban state level AI regulation. The Overton window is rapidly shifting in DC, and I think people should re-evaluate what the most important messages are to communicate to policymakers. I would argue they already know "AI is a big deal." The next important question to answer is, "What should America do about it?"
 ·  · 13m read
 · 
  There is dispute among EAs--and the general public more broadly--about whether morality is objective.  So I thought I'd kick off a debate about this, and try to draw more people into reading and posting on the forum!  Here is my opening volley in the debate, and I encourage others to respond.   Unlike a lot of effective altruists and people in my segment of the internet, I am a moral realist.  I think morality is objective.  I thought I'd set out to defend this view.   Let’s first define moral realism. It’s the idea that there are some stance independent moral truths. Something is stance independent if it doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks or feels about it. So, for instance, that I have arms is stance independently true—it doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks about it. That ice cream is tasty is stance dependently true; it might be tasty to me but not to you, and a person who thinks it’s not tasty isn’t making an error. So, in short, moral realism is the idea that there are things that you should or shouldn’t do and that this fact doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks about them. So, for instance, suppose you take a baby and hit it with great force with a hammer. Moral realism says: 1. You’re doing something wrong. 2. That fact doesn’t depend on anyone’s beliefs about it. You approving of it, or the person appraising the situation approving of it, or society approving of it doesn’t determine its wrongness (of course, it might be that what makes its wrong is its effects on the baby, resulting in the baby not approving of it, but that’s different from someone’s higher-level beliefs about the act. It’s an objective fact that a particular person won a high-school debate round, even though that depended on what the judges thought). Moral realism says that some moral statements are true and this doesn’t depend on what people think about it. Now, there are only three possible ways any particular moral statement can fail to be stance independently true: 1. It’s