The host has requested RSVPs for this event
11 Going5 Maybe1 Can't Go
Julian
lexande
Milli🔸
Doris
Kai
Markus Neuschäfer
Vanchhit
Basti
Niklas
Victoria
Oliver Kegel
Arpit
Elliot Olds
Cristina
Eugenia Albano
Adventurer J
Aby_Fdz

Food for Thought is a series of events, where we discuss philosophical and practical questions of EA in small groups over food and drinks: We are exploring effective altruism one bite at a time (at the moment, it's rather one sip at a time, until we've found an indoor location that allows us to bring food). EA newcomers are welcome; studying the suggested material is encouraged but not required, please RSVP.

Topic

This time we want to get practical again! Join us for an evening about probabilistic thinking. We will prepare a couple of small exercises and games to calibrate and learn more about this approach of viewing the world. For those of you who'd rather come for a discussion, there will also be room for a meta discussion and the question: how well does this approach serve us as an EA commiunity?

Suggested Reading

The Bayesian Mindset: https://www.cold-takes.com/the-bayesian-mindset/

Where/How/What

Since it's now too cold for a picnic in the park, we are going to meet at Atopia. It is easy to reach via Ringbahn (Prenzlauer Allee), M10 (Prenzlauer Allee/Danziger Staße) or M2 (Fröbelstraße).

What to bring

Some change to buy a drink - they don't accept card payment at Atopia.

Sorry for the bad formatting - it doesnt work currently for me. I've tried it on several browsers.

3

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments5
Everyone who RSVP'd to this event will be notified.


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Hi everyone,

for newcomers @Atopia: How do we find each other?

See you soon,
Niklas

Hi Niklas, sorry for not responding! I somehow did not get any notification about this. Glad you found as anyway :)

Thank you all for joining, I hope you enjoyed it as well! My delay getting home was less severe than on the way to Atopia but still a lot more than 1 minute and today there were white patches on the grass close to the S-Bahn ^^

A couple of random points connected to yesterday's discussion. I would be glad to hear your thoughts:

  • For me the best thing I learned yesterday was how beneficial it can actually be to discuss a question, based on the probability different people assign to a certain outcome. I hadn't realised this before.

  • Here is an article about probabilistic reasoning that Isa and I discussed during preparation as well, maybe you'll find it as interesting as we did: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/BWLAzZEA5K7HPr2CL/probabilities-prioritization-and-bayesian-mindset

  • And, last point: I have a question. Is anyone aware of any good research on the topic of how well humans perform when making decisions on guessed probabilities in complex cenarios where the whole state space is (other than in a game scenario) not known to anyone.

Hi, I thoroughly enjoyed the evening and was struck by the diversity of perspectives shared. It was fascinating how seemingly unrelated questions—such as the probability of humanity’s survival until the end of the century and the likelihood of someone born after 2001 living to 150—intertwined in surprising ways ;) For further exploration of such complex scenarios, my favorites are “Noise” by Daniel Kahneman and “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, as they offer profound insights into judgment, probability, and uncertainty. 🖖 Olli

[comment deleted]1
0
0
Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Relevant opportunities
18
Eva
· · 1m read