Yes, you're totally right that I was just speaking about the range and not the expectation! That's part of the reason why I said none of the points I made are decisive for working on s-risk. I was only providing arguments against the position that the range is symmetric, which I often see people take.

So, I don't understand the double standard, where those subject to false allegations don't enjoy anonymity, and those making the false allegations do get to enjoy anonymity.

I don't think all people in the replies were arguing that Ben's initial post was okay and deanonymizing Alice and or Chloe would be bad (which I think you would call a double standard, which I'm not commenting on right now). Some probably do but some probably think that Ben's initial post was bad and that deanonymizing Alice and or Chloe would also be bad and that we shouldn't try to correct one bad with another bad, which doesn't look like a double standard to me.

Oh man, tough situation, and also congrats and this sounds awesome and admiration that you're thinking about this question.

As other commenters, I don't know the first thing about patents. Have you talked to a lawyer, including to figure out whether you can patent in a way that doesn't involve the Tech Transfer office (so much)?

Not sure about the claim but possible! I certainly wouldn't say no to something automatic. But I think if setting it yourself is easy enough, it would still get a bunch of the value! I think if the feature was implemented in a similar way to in-line commenting on LessWrong, where you just hover over the correct line and it offers you a bookmark-button that you just need to click, that would be low-friction enough for people like me to use it. (I think anything that's two-click might be too much friction)

Within-post bookmarks

I often start posts but they are too long to read them in one go and the fact that I have to do that (or forever forget where I am) creates a big ugh field for me. Solution: Within-post bookmarks! I think it would be amazing if we could mark where we are in a post and the next time, we can just click to get ourselves back there!

(FWIW, I think that's a major feature of printed media, which I have much less ugh feelings about reading. You can always put it away without it being annoying later on.)

If not about "really bad" stuff then feedback should be consensual as a norm - As a community I think we should want to be opting into feedback rather than assuming everyone wants it.

I agree with this. It seems quite hard to implement well unfortunately. Asking if someone wants to hear some (negative) feedback can make it really hard for the other person to say no and already does some of the damage, so in some sense already takes away from it being truly consensual. There probably is some way to do this skillfully but it seems hard/if there is a way that just works and is easy to apply, I don't know it. That said, I think asking someone if there wanna hear some feedback and if now is a good time is usually better than nothing.

(That said, we might disagree on the details of in which cases non-consensual feedback is fine.)

People assume I want feedback a lot and frankly, I do, but some of it can be brutal. And I have pretty thick skin. I have been sad for days after EA feedback. I wouldn't want other people to be treated like this without opting into it

Interesting. I don't think I've made this experience (much - I had this kind of feedback once in 2019). Unless I just can't think of it right now (very possible, I'm very forgetful and easily miss obvious things), I don't think people give me much feedback at all. I wonder if some of the difference in what we emphasise comes from a difference in how people treat us based on demographics etc. (I'm a small woman while Nathan is a tall man. I think my conversation style also projects less perceived confidence than his. I would expect most people to expect me to be more sensitive.)

So maybe one unintuitive takeaway could be "offer marginally more feedback to people who most people based on a shallow impression wouldn't think can take it; be marginally more careful with feedback to people who most people based on a shallow impression would think can take it."

edit: Some context is that I wrote this post as a reaction to being frustrated over the years with concrete instances of people not sharing important negative feedback and finding it a bit crazy that people don't do so (not in they are crazy but it's crazy that the world works that way) - some of this is second-hand knowledge though.

I agree that gentle honesty usually > brutal honesty! I agree that this is important and some people would actually do better by giving (negative) feedback less often and more carefully. Thanks for clarifying!

I just wanted to ask for brutal honesty for me specifically because I wanted to lower the amount of effort necessary to give me feedback and push towards clarity whenever there's a trade-off between clarity and being gentle - but just for giving feedback to me in particular. I don't endorse universally doing that for everyone.

Center on Long-Term Risk (my employer) focuses on reducing s-risk (risks of astronomical suffering.)

(And AFAIK coined the term (long before my times though))

Many large donors (and donation advisors) do not take general applications. This includes Open Philanthropy (“In general, we expect to identify most giving opportunities via proactive searching and networking”), Longview, REG, CERR, CLR, and the new Longtermism Fund.

Grant manager at CLR here - we take general applications to the CLR Fund and would love to get more of them. Note that our grantmaking is specifically s-risk focused.*

Copy pasting another comment of mine from another post over here:

If you or someone you know are seeking funding to reduce s-risk, please send me a message. If it's for a smaller amount, you can also apply directly to CLR Fund. This is true even if you want funding for a very different type of project than what we've funded in the past.

I work for CLR on s-risk community building and on our CLR Fund, which mostly does small-scale grantmaking, but I might also be able to make large-scale funding for s-risk projects ~in the tens of $ millions (per project) happen. And if you have something more ambitious than that, I'm also always keen to hear it :)

*We also fund things that aren't specifically targeted towards s-risk reduction but still seem beneficial to s-risk reduction. Some of our grants this year that we haven't published yet are such grants. That said, we are often not in the best position to evaluate applications that aren't focused on s-risk even if they would have some s-risk-reducing side effects, especially when these side effects are not clearly spelled out in the application.