EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
by [anonymous]
2 min read 55

11

Frontpage

Basic Idea

The CEA team is thinking of creating a list of the best content from the Effective Altruism community during 2016. This would be distributed on effectivealtruism.org and potentially in the EA Newsletter and elsewhere.

The goals of the project would be to:

  1. Help busy people stay up-to-date with the best content from the community;
  2. give some additional recognition to EAs that work hard to produce excellent content.

We'll figure out some method of choosing the winning content and will distribute it in December.

The goal of this thread is to get a sense of how valuable people think this project would be and to solicit nominations for some of the best content of the year.

What we're looking for in a nomination

We're looking for the best content from around EA. The term "content" is intentionally vague since we're interested in forum posts, personal blog posts, blog posts from EA organizations, podcasts, videos, even particularly good posts on social media. If it made you think or changed your mind then it's likely something worth nominating.

We're mostly interested in content from the "EA community" broadly conceived, but it may make sense to include content that is relevant to the EA community but produced elsewhere. So, feel free to nominate any content that you think is especially good.

Some prompts to help 

Below are some prompts you might use to help remember some of your favorite content.

  • What was the most important thing you changed your mind about this year? What made you change your mind?
  • What was the most surprising thing you learned this year?
  • What was the best content you read about in some of the major cause areas (e.g. global poverty, animal welfare, far future, EA community building, Cause X, bio security, open borders and others)?
  • What was the best post from the blog of an EA organization?
  • What was the best post from someone's personal blog?

What we need from you

  • Please upvote this post if you think this is a worthwhile project (the response we get here will, in part, determine how much time we spend on this).
  • Please post a link to your favorite content and, if you have time, a quick explanation of why you liked it. (Please post a single article per post so that we can get up/downvoting data on each article).
  • Please upvote posts you also found impactful.

 

11

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments55


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
MichaelDickens7
0
0

I believe that when people describe content as "best", what they usually mean is "most fun to read", which is probably not what you want. People naturally like things better when they're fun to read, or when they "feel" insightful. People enjoy reading motivational blogs, even though they're basically useless; people do not enjoy reading statistics textbooks, even though they're extremely useful. I don't believe I personally can do a good job of separating posts/articles that are important to read and ones that I enjoyed reading.

On the other hand, I cannot think of a better strategy for curating good content than asking people to submit the posts they like best. Maybe something like peer review would work better, where you get a small group of people who consciously optimize for finding valuable articles, not necessarily interesting ones?

Reply
MichaelDickens4
0
0

I've thought about this some more and I have some idea of the kind of process I would use if I were trying to curate the best content in EA.

I don't trust myself to make intuitive judgments about which posts are best--I'm going to end up picking the ones that were the most fun to read. I believe I could mitigate this by creating an explicit checklist of the things I would want in a "best of" post, and then look for posts matching it.

Actually the #1 thing I'd look for in a post is, did I do substantially more good as a result of reading this post? Sometimes it's obvious how something you read helps you do good and sometimes it's more vague, but you should at least be able to say why a post substantially benefited you if you're going to nominate it as a "best of" post.

Reply
MichaelDickens3
0
0

This is a pretty difficult test to pass. Some things I read that did cause me to do noticeably more good include:

  • Peter Singer's All Animals Are Equal, because it played a significant role in me becoming vegetarian (and later vegan) and taking animal welfare seriously
  • GiveWell's writeup on VillageReach because it taught me that finding good charities is hard and you shouldn't rely on naive cost-effectiveness estimates
  • GiveWell's suggested questions to ask when evaluating charities (I don't know if this is still on the site)
  • Brian Tomasik's The Importance of Wild Animal Suffering because it convinced me that wild animal suffering is important
  • Brian Tomasik's cost-effectiveness analysis on factory farming interventions
  • The book The Intelligent Asset Allocator, which ostensibly has nothing to do with doing good, but helped me learn how to better manage my investments which indirectly enables me to do a lot more good
  • Alexei Andreev's Maximizing Your Donations via a Job

None of these are from 2016 so they're not eligible. As far as I can remember, the only things I've read in 2016 that caused me to do substantially more good were charities' writeups about their own activities.

Reply
Ben Millwood🔸1
0
0

Givewell's suggested questions to ask are at their Do-It-Yourself Charity Evaluation Questions page.

Reply
[anonymous]1
0
0

Agree with this. I'm not yet sure how we'll select the best posts, but I think it will be some combination of votes and talking with experts to distill the content down.

Reply
Kat Woods4
0
0

The most recent EA survey might be a good thing to include.

Reply
Evan_Gaensbauer3
0
0

[epistemic status: this pattern-matches behaviour I've seen on LessWrong before, so I'm suspicious there may be a mass downvoter here. It could be a coincidence. Not above 40% confident at this point. Feel free to ignore.]

Someone keeps consistently downvoting Kerry's comments. I've been on LessWrong for a while, where that was an occasional nuisance for everyone, but a real bother for the few users who go the brunt of it. I imagine there's a future for the EA Forum where the almost universal upvoting stops, and more downvoting begins. In all honesty, I'd think that'd lead to healthier discourse. However, I'd like to denormalize mass downvoting all of one user's comments. Whoever you are, even if you're really mad at Kerry right now, I think we can at least agree we don't want to set a precedent of only downvoting comments without giving feedback and why we disagree. I'd like to set a precedent we do.

Joey and Michael have both weighed in that they think a CEA team spending a lot of time on this relative to a little time isn't worth it. Kerry agreed. Be assured CEA staffers aren't wasting time and valuable donor money, then. Even if you think this whole thread is a stupid idea of Kerry's, and his suggestions are stupid too, please come out and say why so whatever problem you perceive may be resolved.

Reply
SoerenMind1
0
0

Can any mods see where the down votes come from and if there's a patter?

Reply
Peter Wildeford2
0
0

It should be theoretically possible, but it sounds like a good deal of work. I've put off wanting to work on it until there's public demand for it. Sounds like the public demand might be mounting.

Reply
MichaelDickens1
0
0

I've spent enough time on forums to know that you can't stop people from voting politically by asking them politely. I think a better solution is to automatically detect mass-downvoting and nullify those votes in the source code. https://github.com/tog22/eaforum/issues/47

Reply
Kelly_Witwicki0
0
0

What about doing a poll on FB (instead or additionally, idk)? Or a private poll elsewhere? (FB is good because people can comment explanations.)

Reply
Joey🔸3
0
0

I think the difference between putting fairly minimal time into this (but still doing it) vs a lot of time seems fairly minimal. Suggestions as replies to this post.

Reply
Joey🔸5
0
0

A bunch of stuff Michael Dickens has written. His quantitative model post came to mind first for me. http://effective-altruism.com/ea/xr/a_complete_quantitative_model_for_cause_selection/

Reply
Ben_West🔸2
0
0

When I saw the title of this post I thought it would be "greatest accomplishments of 2016". Just commenting to note that I would prefer reading that instead of "most interesting content of 2016".

Reply
Kelly_Witwicki2
0
0

"Altruism, numbers, and factory farms": https://sentience-politics.org/philosophy/altruism-numbers-factory-farms

Sentience Politics recently published a page on the significance of factory farms, which also includes discussion on why it's important to consider numbers and compare suffering.

(Disclaimer, I work at SP/EAF.)

Reply
Kelly_Witwicki1
0
0

And FRI and SP both have articles on wild animals, not sure which is better for purposes here. SP's is a bit more introductory/accessible maybe, and also expresses more philosophical arguments for why we should care; FRI's a bit more academic and does not address some typical introductory reactions.

FRI's: https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering/

Reply
lukeprog3
0
0

Seems like this one should probably count for 2009 rather than 2016…

Reply
lukeprog1
0
0

I like this idea. I'll make some suggestions (not already made elsewhere on this page) as replies to this comment.

Reply
lukeprog1
0
0

Seems hard to pick one post in particular from the 80k blog; maybe I'll have to nominate the book when it comes out.

Reply
[anonymous]0
0
0

.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
[anonymous]0
0
0

I'll start things off by putting some of the content I really liked as replies to this post.

Reply
[anonymous]9
0
0

GiveWell's post on why they recommend SCI even though deworming might have close to zero impact.

I thought this was a really good look at how GiveWell things about expected value with respect to their top charities and helps rebut the claim that EAs are mostly concerned with high certainty charity donations.

Reply
[anonymous]2
0
0

Rob Wiblin's post on how much voting matters

The post updated me massively in the direction of voting being extremely important. Plus, if he's right about how much voting matters, the impact of the post is likely to be pretty massive.

Reply
[anonymous]1
0
0

Will's opening talk from EA Global

Lots of good content here although I'm particularly fond of his discussion of Cause X

Reply
[anonymous]0
0
0

Concerns with Intentional Insight

This might not be the best post to share with more casual EAs, but it was extremely well researched and raised an issue that needed to be addressed.

Reply
MichaelDickens4
0
0

This is the sort of post I was talking about in my other comment--fun to read and easy to agree with, and therefore popular, but not particularly important.

Reply
[anonymous]-2
0
0

GiveWell's classic April Fools joke

This post was controversial, but I laughed long and hard and really enjoyed seeing a more human side from them.

Reply
John_Maxwell5
0
0

A big purpose of awards is to send a signal about what kind of work will get recognized. If we give awards to joke posts, expect more joke posts.

I actually think the best use of awards is to recognize posts that are not the kind of content that spreads virally. Pageviews already serve as an ego boost for most authors. We should reward serious boring posts, in the same way the Nobel Prize is given out for serious boring research.

Reply
mic0
0
0

The link "View test writeup" seems broken. It brings me to a login page rather than the actual joke post. Did they take it down?

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 13m read
 · 
Notes  The following text explores, in a speculative manner, the evolutionary question: Did high-intensity affective states, specifically Pain, emerge early in evolutionary history, or did they develop gradually over time? Note: We are not neuroscientists; our work draws on our evolutionary biology background and our efforts to develop welfare metrics that accurately reflect reality and effectively reduce suffering. We hope these ideas may interest researchers in neuroscience, comparative cognition, and animal welfare science. This discussion is part of a broader manuscript in progress, focusing on interspecific comparisons of affective capacities—a critical question for advancing animal welfare science and estimating the Welfare Footprint of animal-sourced products.     Key points  Ultimate question: Do primitive sentient organisms experience extreme pain intensities, or fine-grained pain intensity discrimination, or both? Scientific framing: Pain functions as a biological signalling system that guides behavior by encoding motivational importance. The evolution of Pain signalling —its intensity range and resolution (i.e., the granularity with which differences in Pain intensity can be perceived)— can be viewed as an optimization problem, where neural architectures must balance computational efficiency, survival-driven signal prioritization, and adaptive flexibility. Mathematical clarification: Resolution is a fundamental requirement for encoding and processing information. Pain varies not only in overall intensity but also in granularity—how finely intensity levels can be distinguished.  Hypothetical Evolutionary Pathways: by analysing affective intensity (low, high) and resolution (low, high) as independent dimensions, we describe four illustrative evolutionary scenarios that provide a structured framework to examine whether primitive sentient organisms can experience Pain of high intensity, nuanced affective intensities, both, or neither.     Introdu
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
A while back (as I've just been reminded by a discussion on another thread), David Thorstad wrote a bunch of posts critiquing the idea that small reductions in extinction risk have very high value, because the expected number of people who will exist in the future is very high: https://reflectivealtruism.com/category/my-papers/mistakes-in-moral-mathematics/. The arguments are quite complicated, but the basic points are that the expected number of people in the future is much lower than longtermists estimate because: -Longtermists tend to neglect the fact that even if your intervention blocks one extinction risk, there are others it might fail to block; surviving for billions  (or more) of years likely  requires driving extinction risk very low for a long period of time, and if we are not likely to survive that long, even conditional on longtermist interventions against one extinction risk succeeding, the value of preventing extinction (conditional on more happy people being valuable) is much lower.  -Longtermists tend to assume that in the future population will be roughly as large as the available resources can support. But ever since the industrial revolution, as countries get richer, their fertility rate falls and falls until it is below replacement. So we can't just assume future population sizes will be near the limits of what the available resources will support. Thorstad goes on to argue that this weakens the case for longtermism generally, not just the value of extinction risk reductions, since the case for longtermism is that future expected population  is many times the current population, or at least could be given plausible levels of longtermist extinction risk reduction effort. He also notes that if he can find multiple common mistakes in longtermist estimates of expected future population, we should expect that those estimates might be off in other ways. (At this point I would note that they could also be missing factors that bias their estimates of
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
We’ve redesigned effectivealtruism.org to improve understanding and perception of effective altruism, and make it easier to take action.  View the new site → I led the redesign and will be writing in the first person here, but many others contributed research, feedback, writing, editing, and development. I’d love to hear what you think, here is a feedback form. Redesign goals This redesign is part of CEA’s broader efforts to improve how effective altruism is understood and perceived. I focused on goals aligned with CEA’s branding and growth strategy: 1. Improve understanding of what effective altruism is Make the core ideas easier to grasp by simplifying language, addressing common misconceptions, and showcasing more real-world examples of people and projects. 2. Improve the perception of effective altruism I worked from a set of brand associations defined by the group working on the EA brand project[1]. These are words we want people to associate with effective altruism more strongly—like compassionate, competent, and action-oriented. 3. Increase impactful actions Make it easier for visitors to take meaningful next steps, like signing up for the newsletter or intro course, exploring career opportunities, or donating. We focused especially on three key audiences: * To-be direct workers: young people and professionals who might explore impactful career paths * Opinion shapers and people in power: journalists, policymakers, and senior professionals in relevant fields * Donors: from large funders to smaller individual givers and peer foundations Before and after The changes across the site are aimed at making it clearer, more skimmable, and easier to navigate. Here are some side-by-side comparisons: Landing page Some of the changes: * Replaced the economic growth graph with a short video highlighting different cause areas and effective altruism in action * Updated tagline to "Find the best ways to help others" based on testing by Rethink
Relevant opportunities
167
[urgent] Americans: call your Senators and tell them you oppose AI preemption
Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸, Felix De Simone
· · 2m read
22
22
67
FLF Fellowship on AI for Human Reasoning: $25-50k, 12 weeks
Oliver Sourbut
·
2
2
113
$100,000 bounty for finding >$1M in legal and collaborative corporate donation matching opportunities
Sam Anschell, Henri Thunberg 🔸, nora ⵣ
· · 4m read
4
4
View more