This is a special post for quick takes by John Salter. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Sorted by Click to highlight new quick takes since:

It seems that part of the reason communism is so widely discredited is the clear contrast between neighboring countries that pursued more free-market policies. This makes me wonder— practicality aside, what would happen if effective altruists concentrated all their global health and development efforts into a single country, using  similar neighboring countries as the comparison group?

Given that EA-driven philanthropy accounts for only about 0.02% of total global aid, perhaps the influence EA's approach could have by definitively proving its impact would be greater than trying to maximise the good it does directly.

This is a really interesting idea and would obviously need a relatively uncorrupt country that is on board with the project. 

To some extent this kind of thing already happens, with aid organisations focusing their funding on countries which use it well. Rwanda is an interesting example of this over the last 20 years as they have attracted huge foreign funding after their dictator basically fixed low level corruption and organized the country surprisingly well. This has led to dis proportionate improvements in healthcare and education compared with surrounding countries, although economically the jury is still out.

The big problem in my eyes then is how do you know it's your interventions baking the difference, rather than just really good governance - very hard to tease apart.

Superficially, it sounds similar to the idea of charter cities. The idea does seem (at face value) to have some merit, but I suspect that the execution of the idea is where lots of problems occur.

So, practically aside, it seems like a massive amount of effort/investment/funding would allow a small country to progress rapidly toward less suffering and better life.

My general impression is that "we don't have a randomized control trial to prove the efficacy of this intervention" isn't the most common reason why people don't get helped. Maybe some combination of lack of resources, politics & entrenched interests, and trade-offs are the big ones? I don't know, but I'm sure some folks around here have research papers and textbooks about it.

Feels unlikely either that it would create an actually valid natural experiment (as you acknowledge, it's not a huge proportion of aid, and there are a lot of other factors that affect a country) or persuade people to do aid differently.

Particularly when EA's GHD programmes tend to be already focused on stuff which is well-evidenced at a granular level (malaria cures and vitamin supplementation) and targeted at specific countries with those problems (not all developing countries have malaria), by organizations that are not necessarily themselves EA, and a lot of non-EA funders are also trying to solve those problems in similar or identical ways.

Also feels like it would be a poor decision for, say, a Charity Entrepreneurship founder trying to solve a problem she identified as one she could make a major difference with based on her extensive knowledge of poverty in India deciding to try the programme in a potentially different Guinean context she doesn't have the same background understanding of simply because other EAs happened to have diverted funding to Guinea for signalling purposes.

ChatGPT deep-research users: What type of stuff does it perform well on? How good is it overall? 

Bit the bullet and paid them $200. So far, it's astonishingly good. If you're in the UK/EU, you can get a refund no questions asked within 14 days so if you're on the fence I'd definitely suggest giving it a go

Y-Combinator wants to fund Mechanistic Interpretability startups

"Understanding model behavior is very challenging, but we believe that in contexts where trust is paramount it is essential for an AI model to be interpretable. Its responses need to be explainable.

For society to reap the full benefits of AI, more work needs to be done on explainable AI. We are interested in funding people building new interpretable models or tools to explain the output of existing models."

Link
https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs (Scroll to 12)

What they look for in startup founders
https://www.ycombinator.com/library/64-what-makes-great-founders-stand-out

What AI tools have made the biggest difference to your or your organisation's productivity?

1700 Joey Savoie (10)

This was from 2018. Does anyone have up-to-date estimates of the value per co-founder per charity?

I'm hiring a full-time remote administrator from an LMIC to take repetitive tasks off my core teams hands. Got any tips on how best to hire / manage them?

It's often easier to get responses from the most senior people in a field.

1. Most people are too intimidated to get in touch with them
2. They're senior for a reason - they tend to be way more productive and opportunity seeking
3. They have VAs, secretaries, and other people to bring serious requests to their attention.

I work in global mental health, and am looking for charities to refer clients to me. The two best-connected people in my field (according to GPT-4) are Dr Vikram Patel and Dr Shekhar Saxena. I sent out ~50 identical cold emails to people I thought could connect me to relevant charities / hospitals etc. Vikram and Saxena were the only two people to reply! 

I've also seen this argued by Tim Ferris and other highly productive people, but it resonated so poorly with my prior beliefs that I didn't update sufficiently. The implications here are huge - it could be way easier to gain access to influential people than the average EA perceives, and influence is power-law distributed! 

I've strongly had this experience. I have written 5 NYT bestsellers a cold email, and 3 replied. I get good rates with C-levels and I get the poorest rates at lower levels. 

But it strongly does depend on your story or organisation in my experience. Your org has a strong story so it warrants a reply. But I did a lot of marketing and some PR for dime in a dozen companies and if you lack a strong story, you can expect reply rates of senior people to be close to zero. 

Yes, though use this power wisely. I think it's good to imagine how much you'd pay to talk to said person and scale my effort as the number gets bigger. 

If I waste this person's time, they may become less willing to be open and hence I'll have damaged the commons. 

Will do now

[comment deleted]2
0
0
[comment deleted]2
0
0
[comment deleted]0
0
0
Curated and popular this week
Echo Huang
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Summary Reading full research (with a complete reference list) This article examines how voluntary governance frameworks in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and AI domains can complement each other to create more effective AI governance systems. By comparing ISO 26000 and NIST AI RMF, I identify: Key findings: * Current AI governance lacks standardized reporting mechanisms that exist in CSR * Framework effectiveness depends on ecosystem integration rather than isolated implementation * The CSR ecosystem model offers valuable lessons for AI governance Main issues identified: 1. Communication barriers between governance and technical implementation 2. Rapid AI advancement outpacing policy development 3. Lack of standardized metrics for AI risk assessment Recommendations: 1. Develop standardized AI risk reporting metrics comparable to GRI standards 2. Create sector-specific implementation modules while maintaining baseline comparability 3. Establish clear accountability mechanisms and verification protocols 4. Build cross-border compliance integration  Understanding ISO 26000: A Model for Effective Policy Ecosystems The Foundation and Evolution of ISO 26000 ISO 26000, established in 2010, represents one of the most comprehensive attempts at creating a global framework for social responsibility. Its development involved experts from over 90 countries and 40 international organizations, creating a global standard. Unlike narrower technical frameworks, ISO 26000 takes a holistic approach to organizational accountability, recognizing that an organization's social and environmental impact directly affects its operational effectiveness. What makes ISO 26000 particularly interesting is its ecosystem integration. The framework doesn't operate alone - it's part of a sophisticated web of interconnected standards, reporting mechanisms, and regulatory requirements. This integration isn't accidental; it's a deliberate response to the limitations of volunt
Omnizoid
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Crossposted from my blog which many people are saying you should check out!    Imagine that you came across an injured deer on the road. She was in immense pain, perhaps having been mauled by a bear or seriously injured in some other way. Two things are obvious: 1. If you could greatly help her at small cost, you should do so. 2. Her suffering is bad. In such a case, it would be callous to say that the deer’s suffering doesn’t matter because it’s natural. Things can both be natural and bad—malaria certainly is. Crucially, I think in this case we’d see something deeply wrong with a person who thinks that it’s not their problem in any way, that helping the deer is of no value. Intuitively, we recognize that wild animals matter! But if we recognize that wild animals matter, then we have a problem. Because the amount of suffering in nature is absolutely staggering. Richard Dawkins put it well: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In fact, this is a considerable underestimate. Brian Tomasik a while ago estimated the number of wild animals in existence. While there are about 10^10 humans, wild animals are far more numerous. There are around 10 times that many birds, between 10 and 100 times as many mammals, and up to 10,000 times as many both of reptiles and amphibians. Beyond that lie the fish who are shockingly numerous! There are likely around a quadrillion fish—at least thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands o
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This piece, from @Garrison, @Lauren Gilbert and @tomwein, is really great quick summary of the US foreign aid pause, focused on PEPFAR (the US funded AIDs reduction effort).  The most affecting aspect of the piece, for me, was the prognoses for people who would no longer receive drugs from the programme: > Perhaps those in the most immediate danger are the children of HIV-positive mothers. PEPFAR currently supports around 680,000 pregnant women with ARV treatment—without access to these drugs, some 20-40 percent of them will transmit HIV to their babies. Without ARV treatment, about half of those infants will die within their first two years of life, most within the first few months. We could very well return to the world of the mid-2000s, where AIDS is once again a death sentence for a large percentage of those infected with HIV. > > Nor would the consequences of ending PEPFAR stay in Africa. In up to 20 percent of individuals who inconsistently take ARVs, HIV becomes drug-resistant. It would not be long before drug-resistant HIV reached the United States, which could undermine decades of progress in HIV prevention and treatment domestically. I say this is the "most shareable" piece I've seen because it succeeds (as much as possible) in being non-partisan. The subtitle mentions US "soft power", and the title "Trump Has Put George W. Bush’s Lifesaving Legacy in Danger" gives some kudos to Bush. This is the best piece I've seen to send to a sceptical/ republican relative. This issue is extremely important and, therefore, very emotive, so it's easy to fall into writing polemic about it. I really appreciate this piece for maintaining an objective tone without being whataboutist.