Hide table of contents

Summary: It's a good idea to request books relevant to Effective Altruism to be placed into your library, particularly for university group organisers. Go and do it!

This is something I've done at my university library, as well as with a local library, and think it's a pretty good thing for everyone to do. 

Benefits

In order of importance:

  • It usually does not take very much effort.
  • It demonstrates trustworthiness of the book, generally.
    • This can be especially true within a university context. The library is a key source of information for all university students, so books may seem more trustworthy.
    • It's easier to recommend someone read a book that's inside of your university library.
  • The library will provide more information about the book (e.g. ISBN, date, author etc.) that you can link to, for group organiser purposes. 

Obvious:

  • People can read those books for free. 
  • Once inside a library, there's the potential for many people to read it.

Process

There should be libraries in your local community and at universities that you may be attending. If you're not a member of your library, you can (and should) probably register for one. 

Search for a book purchase request form at your library. It may be called something different, such as a resource suggestion form. If there's not a specific form for it, you can send an enquiry to the library to request a book. 

Please ensure you include the book's title, author, and year/edition, as well as any other information requested by the library. If you're a university group organiser, it's likely helpful to note that you're with a university student group.

Note that Life You Can Save and 80,000 Hours are freely downloadable on those websites, so ensure you request for a physical copy for the library. 

University groups

As your library may not buy more than one or two books, this probably won't replace having a stock of books within a university student group. This is especially true for some 'introductory' books such as Doing Good Better, The Precipice, and Scout Mindset, which are quite 'core' books and do not have free digital replacements.

In practice

The books that I've requested and that are (being) placed by Macquarie University (MQ) library are: 80,000 hours; The Precipice; The Scout Mindset; The Alignment Problem; Algorithms To Live By; Superintelligence; Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning; What We Owe The Future.

Here's an EA MQ reading list that includes links to the MQ library, made in Canva (two sided A4 flyer), that you can view here.  If you'd like to use this as a template, you can do that here. I used book suggestions from a few places, including my general knowledge, my fellow organisers, and Forum posts about GoodReads lists, Information Design, and Biosecurity.

14

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for your post, great advice.

Please ensure you include the book's title, author, and year/edition, as well as any other information requested by the library. If you're a university group organiser, it's likely helpful to note that you're with a university student group.

Maybe include the ISBN as well. For academic libraries, it's also helpful to say which students the book is relevant for. Peter Singer's books would be relevant for the Arts students studying philosophy, for example. Academic libraries can buy some extracurricular resources, but most of the budget is for course-relevant resources.

It's important to actually use the books after they arrive! Libraries will look at metrics like the number of times a book is borrowed, the number of unique borrowers, date it was last borrowed, etc. Books that don't get used will eventually be weeded out of the collection. Books that are borrowed a lot may justify multiple copies.

It may be additionally possible to suggest featuring a book / putting it in public display for discovery.

In my case (libraries in Québec) I was initially surprised at how libraries were receptive (likely to purchase) to book suggestions.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while
Max Taylor
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Many thanks to Constance Li, Rachel Mason, Ronen Bar, Sam Tucker-Davis, and Yip Fai Tse for providing valuable feedback. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Artificial General Intelligence (basically, ‘AI that is as good as, or better than, humans at most intellectual tasks’) seems increasingly likely to be developed in the next 5-10 years. As others have written, this has major implications for EA priorities, including animal advocacy, but it’s hard to know how this should shape our strategy. This post sets out a few starting points and I’m really interested in hearing others’ ideas, even if they’re very uncertain and half-baked. Is AGI coming in the next 5-10 years? This is very well covered elsewhere but basically it looks increasingly likely, e.g.: * The Metaculus and Manifold forecasting platforms predict we’ll see AGI in 2030 and 2031, respectively. * The heads of Anthropic and OpenAI think we’ll see it by 2027 and 2035, respectively. * A 2024 survey of AI researchers put a 50% chance of AGI by 2047, but this is 13 years earlier than predicted in the 2023 version of the survey. * These predictions seem feasible given the explosive rate of change we’ve been seeing in computing power available to models, algorithmic efficiencies, and actual model performance (e.g., look at how far Large Language Models and AI image generators have come just in the last three years). * Based on this, organisations (both new ones, like Forethought, and existing ones, like 80,000 Hours) are taking the prospect of near-term AGI increasingly seriously. What could AGI mean for animals? AGI’s implications for animals depend heavily on who controls the AGI models. For example: * AGI might be controlled by a handful of AI companies and/or governments, either in alliance or in competition. * For example, maybe two government-owned companies separately develop AGI then restrict others from developing it. * These actors’ use of AGI might be dr