Hide table of contents

Quick sidenote

Due to complications, despite generous efforts from the audio team, the audio recording is almost completely inaccurate for several parts of this. listener's discretion is advised. 

Also, it has come to my attention that this does not include the discrete case, and the probability distribution functions are a bit wonky, as the method currently provided is optimized purely for comparing abstract functions. At the moment, the function treats probability distributions* as though there is a uniformly randomly distributed input (x), and a non-uniform output (), and the probability distribution* of  is  as * for the continuous function , ( being the inverse function of .). I am working to fix this. (I am currently undergoing more time-effective projects, and this article will likely be outdated until many months from now, if ever.)

Explanation

In summary, the function takes input functions and  outputs the expected highest output given some randomly generated input for each input function. 

This can be used to see how many jobs you should consider, how many charities to look into, and many other things. For the sake of the example, we'll use restaurants.

Let's say you want to know how many restaurants you should try before deciding where you should go to dinner. Each restaurant is assigned a "Tastiness value" between -1 and 1, with a uniform probability distribution[1][2]. This can be expressed with the function .

 For that, you would have input  into the function on desmos.

and  being however many restaurants you visit.

the value of   then predicts the expected value of [the best restaurant you find]. input different values for  until the value of  meets your needs.

 

Now, let's say that you now have the option of delivery.

The distribution of good delivery places to bad places is [3][4]

 Now, you would add the inputs ,

and  being the number of delivery places you order from.

change  and  until you are satisfied with the result.

Link

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/q5wwazy8uc

How to use

Value

What the value 

represents

How to edit

The first 

function

The number of times 

 is evaluated

 

The minimum value of x for 

The maximum

value of x for 

[5]

The outputJust look at it
All things with a 2 (like )The second function's valuesSame as with 1, just edit the ones with a 2 instead.
All things with a 3 (like )The third function's valuesSame as with 1, just edit the ones with a 3 instead.

How to add a function[6]

Optional Why it works

(It's a link to a post on why it works.)

If you have any suggestions as to how I can make this clearer, or a better way of finding the expected value of the best option, or any wording that could be done differently, tell me. (ONLY if you want). No pressure. 

If there's anything incorrect, please tell me.

  1. ^

    A uniform probability distribution means that the probabilities of each outcome are the same.

  2. ^

    The distribution could've been different. For example, if no restaurant is bad, and good restaurants have diminishing returns, the function could be , where  or if restaurants are more likely to be good, the function could be , where .

  3. ^

    This would be because you could look at the rating of each place on most delivery apps, which eliminates terrible places, but the food is less fresh, causing slightly less food. (This doesn't perfectly reflect reality though)

  4. ^

    The formula doesn't work if there's a correlation in-between values (For example, maybe you get delivery more from the good restaurants, making a correlation between restaurants and delivery.)

  5. ^

    If it says that  is undefined, that's probably either because of 

    1. Limited processing power (Desmos thinks  which is undefined

    2. An undefined input (for example, if , and  is undefined because  is undefined.

  6. ^

     on Desmos, to do , simply write a_b. This works for all a and b, and is used for log [ = log_a(b)]

  7. Show all footnotes
Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I didn't even know you could make a table and then embed youtube videos within the table on EA Forum posts! Very cool. 

[anonymous]-1
0
0

Thanks :)

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
TLDR When we look across all jobs globally, many of us in the EA community occupy positions that would rank in the 99.9th percentile or higher by our own preferences within jobs that we could plausibly get.[1] Whether you work at an EA-aligned organization, hold a high-impact role elsewhere, or have a well-compensated position which allows you to make significant high effectiveness donations, your job situation is likely extraordinarily fortunate and high impact by global standards. This career conversations week, it's worth reflecting on this and considering how we can make the most of these opportunities. Intro I think job choice is one of the great advantages of development. Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone had to be a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and they typically didn’t get a choice between those. Now there is typically some choice in low income countries, and typically a lot of choice in high income countries. This already suggests that having a job in your preferred field puts you in a high percentile of job choice. But for many in the EA community, the situation is even more fortunate. The Mathematics of Job Preference If you work at an EA-aligned organization and that is your top preference, you occupy an extraordinarily rare position. There are perhaps a few thousand such positions globally, out of the world's several billion jobs. Simple division suggests this puts you in roughly the 99.9999th percentile of job preference. Even if you don't work directly for an EA organization but have secured: * A job allowing significant donations * A position with direct positive impact aligned with your values * Work that combines your skills, interests, and preferred location You likely still occupy a position in the 99.9th percentile or higher of global job preference matching. Even without the impact perspective, if you are working in your preferred field and preferred country, that may put you in the 99.9th percentile of job preference
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Summary Following our co-founder Joey's recent transition announcement we're actively searching for exceptional leadership to join our C-level team and guide AIM into its next phase. * Find the full job description here * To apply, please visit the following link * Recommend someone you think could be a great fit here * Location: London strongly preferred. Remote candidates willing to work from London at least 3 months a year and otherwise overlapping at least 6 hours with 9 am to 5 pm BST will be considered. We are happy to sponsor UK work visas. * Employment Type: Full-time (35 hours) * Application Deadline: rolling until August 10, 2025 * Start Date: as soon as possible (with some flexibility for the right candidate) * Compensation: £45,000–£90,000 (for details on our compensation policy see full job description) Leadership Transition On March 15th, Joey announced he's stepping away from his role as CEO of AIM, with his planned last day as December 1st. This follows our other co-founder Karolina's completed transition in 2024. Like Karolina, Joey will transition to a board member role while we bring in new leadership to guide AIM's next phase of growth. The Opportunity AIM is at a unique inflection point. We're seeking an exceptional leader to join Samantha and Devon on our C-level team and help shape the next era of one of the most impactful organizations in the EA ecosystem. With foundations established (including a strong leadership team and funding runway), we're ready to scale our influence dramatically and see many exciting pathways to do so. While the current leadership team has a default 2026 strategic plan, we are open to a new CEO proposing radical departures. This might include: * Proposing alternative ways to integrate or spin off existing or new programs * Deciding to spend more resources trialling more experimental programs, or double down on Charity Entrepreneurship * Expanding geographically or deepening impact in existing region
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
The Strategic Animal Funding Circle just finished its first two rounds of grantmaking, and we ended up giving ~$900,000 across 16 organisations. Below is some brief reasoning behind why we were excited about these grants and broad factors that resulted in us not granting to other organisations. Overall we were pretty excited about the quality of applications we got and feel optimistic the circle will continue to run/deploy more in the future. At the bottom of this post, you can find more information about the next round, how to apply and how to join as a donor.  Top four reasons we ruled out applications Unclear theory of change The most common reason an organisation was ruled out was for unclear theory of change. This has come up with other funding circles’ explanation copied from a prior writeup we made “Some applicants do not share sufficient reasoning on how their project (in the end) contributes to a better world. Other applicants have a theory of change which seems too complex or involves too many programs. We generally prefer fewer programs with a more narrow focus, especially for earlier-stage projects. Other ToCs simply seem like an inaccurate representation of how well the intervention would actually work. As a starting point, we recommend Aidan Alexander’s post on ToCs.” We particularly saw this challenge with research projects and political projects.  Lack of strong plan, goals or evidence for why a group may achieve success. The groups focused too much on WHAT they wanted to achieve and insufficiently on HOW they planned to achieve this. In the future, we recommend that applicants elaborate on what are their SMART goals, what their plan is to achieve them or what other evidence exists that they will achieve what they planned for example, showing their track record or effectiveness of the intervention in general. This will enable us to judge and build confidence in their ability to execute the project and therefore increase our interest in funding