I think there are real downsides of mixing unrelated goals (in this case: improving livelihoods/skills for educated people in LMICs, and getting work done). 

• remote work requires people who already have computer access, reliable internet, professional skills, and proficient English (or whatever language you need). So these are people who are already relatively well-off in their setting.

• management capacity is often a bottleneck, so rather than onboarding people to things like deadlines and quality standards, for the sake of getting the work done efficiently you might rather pay a higher rate to get someone who doesn't need as much hand-holding. (Maybe this isn't relevant if the work you want done isn't itself aiming at a positive impact, and you're ok with your widget business running less efficiently in order to offer a jobs program.)

  If you have needs that can be met just as well by remote workers in LMICs, seems great! But I wouldn't start with the premise that this is your best option for improving the world.

Mostly to various projects on AI risk policy and communications, and a smaller portion to GiveWell's recommended charities

For people interested in this type of content, Yale has/had a similar course called "Life Worth Living", mostly from a religious rather than philosophy perspective. A variety of interviews with past guests: https://lifeworthliving.yale.edu/practitioners

Top level post:

I haven’t actually seen the evidence that the LessWrong community was particularly early on covid or gave particularly wise advice on what to do about it.

I'm saying microcovid was a useful contribution on what to do about covid that came out of the rationality community.

To give an example of where rationalists produced a useful tool here, I found microcovid useful. For example, to convince my father that it was very low-risk for him to resume outdoor social activities.

In cases where there is an established science or academic field or mainstream expert community, the default stance of people in EA should be nearly complete deference to expert opinion, with deference moderately decreasing only when people become properly educated (i.e., via formal education or a process approximating formal education) or credentialed in a subject.

On the other hand, many early critiques of GiveWell were basically "Who are you, with no background in global development or in traditional philanthropy, to think you can provide good charity evaluations?"

I first heard of cluster headaches when I worked in a psychiatric hospital with a young man who was suicidal in part due to his cluster headaches.
I didn't realize how little access to standard treatments there is! Thank you for moving this forward.

I don't have reason to think that prioritizing women's careers is more common in EA than in other similarly educated groups. And within EA, I definitely think it's still most common that women are doing more of the parenting work. But I wanted to highlight some examples to show that multiple configurations really are possible!

Hi Jessica! Some things you might check out if you're not already connected:
- EA Connect, the upcoming virtual conference
- Magnify Mentoring which might have mentors with experience in connecting people in LMICs to areas where AI safety is more established
- The opportunities board, which tends to have more accessible roles than boards aimed at full-time jobs
 

I kept wondering "how does this compare to sunlight" in terms of radiation that reaches the living layers of your skin, etc. Might be worth including that.