This is a special post for quick takes by Patrick Liu. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey
Comment Permalink
A plea to EAG Boston presenter...
Some presentations stick with you after EAG. Some evaporate as you leave the room. While there is a lot of amazing content at EAG, I'd like to seem more consideration on how to deliver a message that sticks. From my experience presenting to the firing squad, here are some tricks of the trade -
1) Figure out who is your primary audience you are speaking to. If you try to cover everyone, you will usually lose everyone.
2) Narrow down to the one message you want them to walk away with.
3) Consider tying your main message to a Call to Action.
4) For an hour slot, consider the 10/20/30 rule.
10 slides - less is more;
20 minute talk (+ 20 minutes to fix the internet, A/V gear, etc + 20 minute buffer for audience interjections);
30 pt font - less is more;
5) Max 7 bullets per slide
6) DO NOT read the slide
7) Be authentic, for your audience to buy your message they need to buy into you
If you prefer to hear it from an ex-Apple evangelist saying it more charmingly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51TLge2peLc
Celebrating your users - this just popped into my inbox celebrating my double digit meetings using the Calendly tool. It highlights a great practice of understanding your users' journey and celebrating the key moments that matter. Onboarding and offboarding are key moments, but so are points that can transition them to a power user. From forum stalker to contributor. This allows me to reflect on how good an experience I've had that I keep using this tool (make sure it is good), and as a next step suggests tips on how I can use the tool more pervasively to get more embedded in the ecosystem. So think about how you can celebrate your users when community building.
Could EA benefit from allowing more space for contemplating a response after a post goes up?
This is a post from Jason Fried who write a lot about modern work practices implemented at his company 37 signals - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-fried_dont-be-a-knee-jerk-at-most-companies-activity-7043983774434414593-Y0jG
He describes not encouraging instant, first impression reactions to idea pitches through flipping the communication process. They put out long form content about the idea before the presentation so there can be more developed responses. For posts in the forum, I feel like posts go for quick comments and that helps it rise to the frontpage and gather more comments. Its good and bad to me and I wonder what an improvement could look like.
(Yes, I knee-jerk wrong about this after seeing the post. )
On the automation of wisdom -
Norman Douglas:
“There are some things you can’t learn from others. You have to pass through the fire.”
Shower thoughts: AI has advanced its intelligence so fast by running thousands of iterations of training. In a way, it has lived a thousand lifetimes during our human lifespan. If each training run was one life, could that be analogous to one human life? If AGI has a survival instinct, could that be analogous to the drive for the survival of the human race as a species? Does that then change the way to look at control or coexistence mechanisms with AGI?
The Atlantic article by Jacob Stern points out that there is no great analogy to capture the essence of Artificial Intelligence. But if there was, then AI would probably just be a subcategory of that idea. AI can be thought of as a combination of things but it is really its own category. Perhaps the best way to put it - AI is like a Chimera with the destructiveness of Nuclear weapons, the uncontrollable virality of Social Media, the double-edged sword of Drug discovery, and the transformative power of Electricity. It is like a lot of things but put together, it may have far reaching implications we have not begun to comprehend.
Curated and popular this week
·
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."
This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country.
The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.
It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions. Here are the organizations I found that come closest:
* Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms
* PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements
* Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards
This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
·
This is a cross post written by Andy Masley, not me. I found it really interesting and wanted to see what EAs/rationalists thought of his arguments.
This post was inspired by similar posts by Tyler Cowen and Fergus McCullough. My argument is that while most drinkers are unlikely to be harmed by alcohol, alcohol is drastically harming so many people that we should denormalize alcohol and avoid funding the alcohol industry, and the best way to do that is to stop drinking.
This post is not meant to be an objective cost-benefit analysis of alcohol. I may be missing hard-to-measure benefits of alcohol for individuals and societies. My goal here is to highlight specific blindspots a lot of people have to the negative impacts of alcohol, which personally convinced me to stop drinking, but I do not want to imply that this is a fully objective analysis. It seems very hard to create a true cost-benefit analysis, so we each have to make decisions about alcohol given limited information.
I’ve never had problems with alcohol. It’s been a fun part of my life and my friends’ lives. I never expected to stop drinking or to write this post. Before I read more about it, I thought of alcohol like junk food: something fun that does not harm most people, but that a few people are moderately harmed by. I thought of alcoholism, like overeating junk food, as a problem of personal responsibility: it’s the addict’s job (along with their friends, family, and doctors) to fix it, rather than the job of everyday consumers. Now I think of alcohol more like tobacco: many people use it without harming themselves, but so many people are being drastically harmed by it (especially and disproportionately the most vulnerable people in society) that everyone has a responsibility to denormalize it.
You are not likely to be harmed by alcohol. The average drinker probably suffers few if any negative effects. My argument is about how our collective decision to drink affects other people. This post is not
·
Today, Forethought and I are releasing an essay series called Better Futures, here.[1] It’s been something like eight years in the making, so I’m pretty happy it’s finally out! It asks: when looking to the future, should we focus on surviving, or on flourishing?
In practice at least, future-oriented altruists tend to focus on ensuring we survive (or are not permanently disempowered by some valueless AIs). But maybe we should focus on future flourishing, instead.
Why?
Well, even if we survive, we probably just get a future that’s a small fraction as good as it could have been. We could, instead, try to help guide society to be on track to a truly wonderful future.
That is, I think there’s more at stake when it comes to flourishing than when it comes to survival. So maybe that should be our main focus.
The whole essay series is out today. But I’ll post summaries of each essay over the course of the next couple of weeks. And the first episode of Forethought’s video podcast is on the topic, and out now, too.
The first essay is Introducing Better Futures: along with the supplement, it gives the basic case for focusing on trying to make the future wonderful, rather than just ensuring we get any ok future at all. It’s based on a simple two-factor model: that the value of the future is the product of our chance of “Surviving” and of the value of the future, if we do Survive, i.e. our “Flourishing”.
(“not-Surviving”, here, means anything that locks us into a near-0 value future in the near-term: extinction from a bio-catastrophe counts but if valueless superintelligence disempowers us without causing human extinction, that counts, too. I think this is how “existential catastrophe” is often used in practice.)
The key thought is: maybe we’re closer to the “ceiling” on Survival than we are to the “ceiling” of Flourishing.
Most people (though not everyone) thinks we’re much more likely than not to Survive this century. Metaculus puts *extinction* risk at about 4
Shower thoughts: AI has advanced its intelligence so fast by running thousands of iterations of training. In a way, it has lived a thousand lifetimes during our human lifespan. If each training run was one life, could that be analogous to one human life? If AGI has a survival instinct, could that be analogous to the drive for the survival of the human race as a species? Does that then change the way to look at control or coexistence mechanisms with AGI?
Despite the enormous number of learning AGI has accomplished, It hasn't produced something similar to a replacement consciousness. I guess the current trajectory is useful to other areas of intelligence - but not a replacement to our human cognitive capacity.