Whoever downvoted it probably won't see your comment, so there isn't much use in asking why certain contributions are downvoted (like more generally).
If I had to guess it might because the connection to EA is weak (no TL;DR or such explaining the relevance[1]) / the post is too-promote-y. My second guess is the fact that the post is "~Entirely AI-written" -- which is not disallowed, just disliked by some people.
Side note: I think calling people low-intelligence for disagreeing/downvoting is anti-social and breaks the first essential norm for discussions on the forum:
I think if you want to engage with the Forum (which I think you should if you're into philosophy!), then you should consider reading the Guide to norms on the Forum to not get consistently confused.
The EA Forum Digest might be biased toward posts made on certain days. Had an LLM gather dates for the posts inside Digest #298 through #302, and compare their weekday frequencies against EA Forum posts made within the same window. Probably not enough data (n=50 for Recommended; n=86 for all Digest Posts) to be meaningful.
(Got the idea to check because I was imagining if I was responsible for writing the Digest and thought, "hmmm I feel like if I were sending out emails every Wed, I would be biased toward posts made on certain days because of the availability heuristic and/or the configuration of my weekly reading/writing schedule")
a couple hundred EA University groups around the world
Fair, I couldn't find a map/list of the current active ones (outside NEST's). I was looking for something like the one made by the AI Safety Seeding Initiative. Thanks for correcting my laziness haha. However, I'd like to push back on "couple hundred"; if I counted correctly, https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/groups shows 284 EA groups (I excluded alignment/AIS/ACX groups). A portion of those are uni groups and a smaller portion are active. Not sure what those two filters would yield but my hunch is that it'd be <100.
It may be better to describe the tradeoff explicitly when it comes up, rather than handwave like, this was easy to automate and there's no slop effect.
100% agree. I think the "personal plea" part is what I lose out on when I do this, so I do share the best opportunities manually as a result. Also agree with thinking about both the magnitude and liklihood of an error. Thanks for your reply!
That'd be amazing. I personally attempted to find people to start EA groups at Drexel, Haverford, Bryn Mawr, & Swarthmore... and failed. If you can do that I'd be really grateful!
Whoever downvoted it probably won't see your comment, so there isn't much use in asking why certain contributions are downvoted (like more generally).
If I had to guess it might because the connection to EA is weak (no TL;DR or such explaining the relevance[1]) / the post is too-promote-y. My second guess is the fact that the post is "~Entirely AI-written" -- which is not disallowed, just disliked by some people.
Side note: I think calling people low-intelligence for disagreeing/downvoting is anti-social and breaks the first essential norm for discussions on the forum:
I think if you want to engage with the Forum (which I think you should if you're into philosophy!), then you should consider reading the Guide to norms on the Forum to not get consistently confused.
"Make the connection to effective altruism clear, even if it seems obvious to you" (Guide to norms on the Forum)
Can you @ me once it's up? Would love to read it!
Great AI use cases! Also very interesting that group size didn't affect ratings -- have we been restricting ourselves for no reason? Hmm..
Thanks!
True! I intentionally wasn't optimizing for reducing suffering, though. But yeah, we should all priotrize the habits we want to add/change.
Thanks for suggesting more! Just added One for the World. I kinda dislike that they require credit card details (high resistance) though
Edit: I switched One for the World with https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/one-for-the-world as GWWC has a lower-resistance sign-up page.
The EA Forum Digest might be biased toward posts made on certain days. Had an LLM gather dates for the posts inside Digest #298 through #302, and compare their weekday frequencies against EA Forum posts made within the same window. Probably not enough data (n=50 for Recommended; n=86 for all Digest Posts) to be meaningful.
(Got the idea to check because I was imagining if I was responsible for writing the Digest and thought, "hmmm I feel like if I were sending out emails every Wed, I would be biased toward posts made on certain days because of the availability heuristic and/or the configuration of my weekly reading/writing schedule")
Hi Catherine, thanks for your comment!
Fair, I couldn't find a map/list of the current active ones (outside NEST's). I was looking for something like the one made by the AI Safety Seeding Initiative. Thanks for correcting my laziness haha. However, I'd like to push back on "couple hundred"; if I counted correctly, https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/groups shows 284 EA groups (I excluded alignment/AIS/ACX groups). A portion of those are uni groups and a smaller portion are active. Not sure what those two filters would yield but my hunch is that it'd be <100.
100% agree. I think the "personal plea" part is what I lose out on when I do this, so I do share the best opportunities manually as a result. Also agree with thinking about both the magnitude and liklihood of an error. Thanks for your reply!
That'd be amazing. I personally attempted to find people to start EA groups at Drexel, Haverford, Bryn Mawr, & Swarthmore... and failed. If you can do that I'd be really grateful!