I played around with it a bit, and I think question 8 can be confusing. It says "Repeat the two moves from the last two questions:", but it actually does not do the moves the user preferred, but the move of picking the right-hand option over the left-hand option.
I imagine that for some audiences the welfare numbers/bar heights will feel arbitrary and made-up, and it is not really explained much. It does not have a unit associated to it, and phrases like "half as good" feel meaningless (compare how "half as warm" can mean a lot of different things).
To be clear, this is not my view and I do think it is possible to have linear scales for well-being (you can use probabilities to induce a linear scale once you can answer comparisons).
Yes. What is not mentioned in their 2-sentence preview is that they are also concerned about human extinction from power-seeking AI systems. I think this is a big contributor to ranking power-seeking AI systems as #1.
At a first glance, this seems to only track how much money was raised, not how much impact was generated.
It also seems that the hard-coded percentages remove some of the advantages of impact markets (but maybe I looked at the demo too much and your actual proposal is different from that).
What I like about traditional impact markets is that it can be modeled with VCs as selfish actors and final oracular funders as altruistic actors. Mixing these two makes the proposal confusing to me, for example it is not clear to me why a later (altruistic) donor would buy out an earlier donor, instead of giving the money directly to the project.
I think applying to EAG makes sense in your position, but do not be too disappointed if your application will not be accepted.
I recommend applying for an EA summit or EAGx too! For example, EAGxSingapore might be a good fit, and it is closer than NYC: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ea-global/events/eagxsingapore-2026
EAGx and EA summit have a lower bar to entry, and many people first attended an EAGx event before attending an EAG event.
Maybe you should inform yourself a little bit more about EA principles before going there, but you do not need to have expert EA knowledge to attend. Regarding your Oikko project, you should be open-minded when attending EAGx or EAG, maybe other participants will try to convince you to work on completely different projects instead.
Whether that is through IT, HR, or providing food.
Not everyone needs to be a high-level researcher, and I think it is fine to list jobs that have very different skill requirements than the typical 80k-advertized job.
Is there a reason why you are focusing on compute and not salaries? The example numbers you use are rather low compared to the yearly salary of a single AIS researcher.
If you and me and all of humanity gets killed by AI and turned into paperclips, that would be an unprecedented moral catastrophe. If the AIs that killed all of us stay around and enjoy having more paperclips, that is still extremely bad. The very act of killing us makes these AIs not a worthy successor of the human species.
This suggests that proposing to pause AI today is like proposing to pause electricity in 1880
The prospect of AI killing all of us makes these very different. Yes, in both cases a pause will probably slow GDP growth. But humans should be willing to accept lower GDP if this notably reduces the chance of all humans being killed.
warning the Tesla founder his wealth would go to “left-wing nonprofits that will be chosen by Bill Gates."
Am I missing something or does this argument make no sense? As far as I can tell, Musk can easily fulfill his giving pledge by giving to his preferred not-left-wing nonprofits without deferring to Bill Gates.
Yes, the latter explanation sounds clearer to me.
Great tool, I liked it!
I played around with it a bit, and I think question 8 can be confusing. It says "Repeat the two moves from the last two questions:", but it actually does not do the moves the user preferred, but the move of picking the right-hand option over the left-hand option.
I imagine that for some audiences the welfare numbers/bar heights will feel arbitrary and made-up, and it is not really explained much. It does not have a unit associated to it, and phrases like "half as good" feel meaningless (compare how "half as warm" can mean a lot of different things).
To be clear, this is not my view and I do think it is possible to have linear scales for well-being (you can use probabilities to induce a linear scale once you can answer comparisons).
Yes. What is not mentioned in their 2-sentence preview is that they are also concerned about human extinction from power-seeking AI systems. I think this is a big contributor to ranking power-seeking AI systems as #1.
At a first glance, this seems to only track how much money was raised, not how much impact was generated.
It also seems that the hard-coded percentages remove some of the advantages of impact markets (but maybe I looked at the demo too much and your actual proposal is different from that). What I like about traditional impact markets is that it can be modeled with VCs as selfish actors and final oracular funders as altruistic actors. Mixing these two makes the proposal confusing to me, for example it is not clear to me why a later (altruistic) donor would buy out an earlier donor, instead of giving the money directly to the project.
AlphaGo was able to identify good moves from among countless useless moves.
I think applying to EAG makes sense in your position, but do not be too disappointed if your application will not be accepted.
I recommend applying for an EA summit or EAGx too! For example, EAGxSingapore might be a good fit, and it is closer than NYC: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ea-global/events/eagxsingapore-2026 EAGx and EA summit have a lower bar to entry, and many people first attended an EAGx event before attending an EAG event.
Maybe you should inform yourself a little bit more about EA principles before going there, but you do not need to have expert EA knowledge to attend. Regarding your Oikko project, you should be open-minded when attending EAGx or EAG, maybe other participants will try to convince you to work on completely different projects instead.
Helping high-impact orgs can be high-impact.
Whether that is through IT, HR, or providing food.
Not everyone needs to be a high-level researcher, and I think it is fine to list jobs that have very different skill requirements than the typical 80k-advertized job.
Is there a reason why you are focusing on compute and not salaries? The example numbers you use are rather low compared to the yearly salary of a single AIS researcher.
If you and me and all of humanity gets killed by AI and turned into paperclips, that would be an unprecedented moral catastrophe. If the AIs that killed all of us stay around and enjoy having more paperclips, that is still extremely bad. The very act of killing us makes these AIs not a worthy successor of the human species.
The prospect of AI killing all of us makes these very different. Yes, in both cases a pause will probably slow GDP growth. But humans should be willing to accept lower GDP if this notably reduces the chance of all humans being killed.
Am I missing something or does this argument make no sense? As far as I can tell, Musk can easily fulfill his giving pledge by giving to his preferred not-left-wing nonprofits without deferring to Bill Gates.