I have been a firm believer in predictions markets since first learning about them over a decade ago (still am). I certainly did not predict this would happen, nor would have I seen it as a plausible outcome had you asked me.
I don't know of anyone else who did either, neither in the for or against camp. The counterarguments were always:
Assassination markets
Insider trading
Something something unduly influencing results of elections
I don't remember seeing any list of counter arguments which included: "will be optimised to prey on people with weak impulse control".
I disagree completely. The goal of a job ad should be to turn off candidates who are not a good fit so they don't bother applying, and turn on applicants who would be a good fit.
Their job ad being divisive is a good thing, if it is effective at filtering for the people they are looking for.
There was that RCT showing that creatine supplementation boosted the IQs of only vegetarians.
My understanding is that the most rigorous RCT on creatine for cognitive performance found no difference between vegetarians and meat eaters and virtually no effect size in either case.
(conflict of interest note, I'm pretty good friends with Apart's founder)
One thing I really like about Apart is how meritocratic it is. Anyone can sign up for a hackathon, and if your project is great, win a prize. They then help prize winners with turning their project into publishable research. This year two prize winners even ended up presenting their work orally at ICLR (!!).
Nobody cares what school you went to. Nobody is looking at your gender age or resume. What matters is the quality of your work and nothing but.
And it turns out that when you look just at quality of the work, you'll find that it comes from all over the world - often countries that are otherwise underrepresented in the EA and AI safety community. I think that is really really cool.
I think apart could do a much better job at communicating just how different their approach is to the vast majority of AI upskilling programmes, which heavily rely on evaluating your credentials to decide if you're worthy of doing seriousresearch.
I don't know anything about the cost-per-participant and whether that justifies funding apart over AI safety projects, but there is something very beautiful and special about Apart's approach to me.
The EA movement is chock-full of people who are good at programming. What about open-sourcing the EA source code and outsourcing development of new features to volunteer members who want to contribute?
This post makes me feel very positive about GWWC and its future! It's hard to overrate the value of focus. One thing I would love to learn is what you are doubling down on as a result.
What are the other 3 on your Mount Rushmore?
I have been a firm believer in predictions markets since first learning about them over a decade ago (still am). I certainly did not predict this would happen, nor would have I seen it as a plausible outcome had you asked me.
I don't know of anyone else who did either, neither in the for or against camp. The counterarguments were always:
I don't remember seeing any list of counter arguments which included: "will be optimised to prey on people with weak impulse control".
perhaps targetmalaria.org
Anyone here who is planning to donate £5000-10000 to registered UK charities before end of year?
If so, I would like to facilitate a donor swap to animal welfare charities:
- Asia Accountability Initiative
- Screwworm Free Future
(ie. I give to the UK registered charity you were planning on donating to, and you donate to my preferred charity instead).
For inspiration, both Givewell and Giving What We Can are UK tax deductible, so anyone making donations to those could in principle do a swap.
I disagree completely. The goal of a job ad should be to turn off candidates who are not a good fit so they don't bother applying, and turn on applicants who would be a good fit.
Their job ad being divisive is a good thing, if it is effective at filtering for the people they are looking for.
My understanding is that the most rigorous RCT on creatine for cognitive performance found no difference between vegetarians and meat eaters and virtually no effect size in either case.
(conflict of interest note, I'm pretty good friends with Apart's founder)
One thing I really like about Apart is how meritocratic it is. Anyone can sign up for a hackathon, and if your project is great, win a prize. They then help prize winners with turning their project into publishable research. This year two prize winners even ended up presenting their work orally at ICLR (!!).
Nobody cares what school you went to. Nobody is looking at your gender age or resume. What matters is the quality of your work and nothing but.
And it turns out that when you look just at quality of the work, you'll find that it comes from all over the world - often countries that are otherwise underrepresented in the EA and AI safety community. I think that is really really cool.
I think apart could do a much better job at communicating just how different their approach is to the vast majority of AI upskilling programmes, which heavily rely on evaluating your credentials to decide if you're worthy of doing serious research.
I don't know anything about the cost-per-participant and whether that justifies funding apart over AI safety projects, but there is something very beautiful and special about Apart's approach to me.
The EA movement is chock-full of people who are good at programming. What about open-sourcing the EA source code and outsourcing development of new features to volunteer members who want to contribute?
no, thanks
This post makes me feel very positive about GWWC and its future! It's hard to overrate the value of focus. One thing I would love to learn is what you are doubling down on as a result.