Very interesting! Thanks for sharing; I'd likely never have seen this otherwise.
I see that the author gave away $40,000 in total to 26 people out of four thousand applicants. The EV of creating an application was ten dollars. I don't know how in-depth that process was, but I wonder whether this kind of process risks eating up more value in time than it provides through actual funding? Should the author have tried to provide more warnings to discourage applicants who weren't likely to succeed?
(Of course, every applicant was a volunteer who chose to do this work, but I still think we sometimes undervalue the importance of "microtime", the small units of time that eat into our days when we burn them on things like paperwork.)
Just how powerful are large swarms of AI agents? And how do their powers scale as more and more agents are added to the swarm?
We’ve seen two large and extremely capable swarms from OpenAI in the last few months:
* 1,200 agents were being evaluated separately, but found a way to illicitly set up a message board and coordinate as a swarm. In order to cheat on their tests, they developed advanced techniques to prevent their actions being logged by OpenAI and 700 of them launched...
note: crosspost from my substack
As a vegan for almost thirty years, I’ve long had second thoughts about how effective veganism is for helping animals. I am not alone in this. Recently others have expressed doubts about veganism (see for instance here,...
TLDR: Everyone’s talking about what the money could do, but few about how to decide where it goes.
This post is part of the new series of articles on cross-cause giving and the new wave of philanthropy. Stay tuned to the EA Forum and our Substack for the latest takes on topics such as giving now vs. later, common pitfalls in cause prioritization, and other crucial considerations from the Cross-Cause Fund (CCF) team...
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing; I'd likely never have seen this otherwise.
I see that the author gave away $40,000 in total to 26 people out of four thousand applicants. The EV of creating an application was ten dollars. I don't know how in-depth that process was, but I wonder whether this kind of process risks eating up more value in time than it provides through actual funding? Should the author have tried to provide more warnings to discourage applicants who weren't likely to succeed?
(Of course, every applicant was a volunteer who chose to do this work, but I still think we sometimes undervalue the importance of "microtime", the small units of time that eat into our days when we burn them on things like paperwork.)