Comments
I think it is somewhat unlikely that this will meet the fairly high EA bar for being a worthwhile donation or volunteering opportunity.
Curated and popular this week
54
This post presents the executive summary from Giving What We Can’s impact evaluation for 2025. At the end of this post we share links to more information, including the full report and...
I used AI to fix transcription errors, rerrarange the ideas, and suggest tweaks to the title and some sentences.
Three of the most exciting projects to come out of EA in recent years are, in a vague sense, CEA spinouts:
* Kairos is directly a spinout of CEA and now handles most support for university AI safety groups. Basically everyone I've found who knows them is really excited about what they do
* NEST is an opinionated ideas-fi...
Recent opportunities to take action
This doesn't seem like a great use of time. For one thing, I think it gets the psychology of political disagreements backwards. People don't simply disagree with each other because they don't understand each others' words. Rather they'll often misinterpret words to meet political ends.
I also question anyone's ability to create such an "objective/apolitical" dictionary. As you note, even the term "woke" can have a negative connotation. (And in some circles it still has a positive connotation.) Some words are essentially political footballs in today's climate. For example, in this dictionary what would be the definition of the word "woman"?
I'm also unconvinced that this is an EA type of activity. For the standard reasons, I think EA should be very cautious when approaching politics. It seems like creating a central hub for people to look up politically loaded terms is the opposite of this.
It's not one or the other. Anyways, having shared definitions also prevents deliberate/strategic misinterpretation.
Sure, nothing is ever apolitical. But you can try to make it less so.
What do you mean "the standard reasons"? I don't think it should be EA "branded". I don't believe EAs should reason from cause areas to interventions; rather I think we should evaluate each intervention independently.
The existence of a dictionary which claims to be apolitical doesn't mean that people will have shared definitions. Webster's dictionary already exists. This doesn't stop people from having semantic disagreements.
How does one make a "less political" dictionary that explicitly and exclusively deals with political concepts?
There's a risk of EA being subsumed under one or another political party, which would make it less credible to those of different political affiliations. There's also the risk of turning into the kind of dumpster fire of bad faith arguments that many political forums encounter. There's also the fact that political issues are relatively less neglected.