N

NickLaing

CEO and Co-Founder @ OneDay Health
12458 karmaJoined Working (6-15 years)Gulu, Ugandaonedayhealth.org

Bio

Participation
1

I'm a doctor working towards the dream that every human will have access to high quality healthcare.  I'm a medic and director of OneDay Health, which has launched 53 simple but comprehensive nurse-led health centers in remote rural Ugandan Villages. A huge thanks to the EA Cambridge student community  in 2018 for helping me realise that I could do more good by focusing on providing healthcare in remote places.

How I can help others

Understanding the NGO industrial complex, and how aid really works (or doesn't) in Northern Uganda 
Global health knowledge
 

Comments
1604

Thanks for the update, and the reasons for the name change make s lot of sense

Instinctively i don't love the new name. The word "coefficient" sounds mathsy/nerdy/complicated, while most people don't know what the word coefficient actually means. The reasoning behind the name does resonate through and i can understand the appeal.

But my instincts are probably wrong though if you've been working with an agency and the team likes it too.

All the best for the future Coefficient Giving!

Thanks @mal_graham🔸  this is super helpful and makes more sense now. I think it would make your argument far more complete if you put something like your third and fourth paragraphs here in your main article. 

And no I'm personally not worried about interventions being ecologically inert. 

As a side note its interesting that you aren't putting much effort into making interventions happen yet - my loose advice would be to get started trying some things. I get that you're trying to build a field, but to have real-world proof of this tractability it might be better to try something sooner rather than later? Otherwise it will remain theory. I'm not too fussed about arguing whether an intervention will be difficult or not - in general I think we are likely to underestimate how difficult an intervention might be.

Show me a couple of relatively easy wins (even small-ish ones) an I'll be right on board :).

i love your framing nice job crafting it! would have been easier if you had put it in the text of this post though ha!

""[...] not getting a reward may create frustration, which is nothing but another form of pain." From my human experience, I can be living "net positive" while being extremely frustrated about something. 

In general I think direct observation of individuals is a fantastic way forward. Maybe even the only way forward here. Theoretical arguments make so many assumptions I fee llike I could argue all sides here.

I'm amazed EAs haven't funded some individual animal observation stuff. Put a small cam and a fitbit on a deer or other prey animal and see what they get up to? My guess is that the life would look more positive than we expect.

I'm going to guess the total donated will be 30% of this by EA funders, and a low percentage by the rest. I think your conservative number is WAY too low based on previous pledge fulfillment rates. I get that it's just a claude generation though

But that's still 2 billion dollars at least, so I've updated positively on the amount of money that might go to good causes. Thanks for this @Ozzie Gooen strong upvote.

I agree the thread direction may be unhelpful, and flame wars are bad.

I disagree though about the merits of questioning motivations, I think its super important.

 In the AI sphere, there are great theoretical arguments on all sides, good arguments for accelleration, caution, pausing etc. We can discuss these ad nauseum and I do think that's useful. But I think motivations likely shape the history and current state of AI development more than unmotivated easoning and rational thought. Money and Power are strong motivators - EA's have sidelined them at their peril before. Although we cannot know people's hearts, we can see and analyse what they have done and said in the past and what motivational pressure might affect them right now.

I also think its possislbe to have a somewhat object level about motivations.

I think this article on the history of Modern AI outlines some of this well https://substack.com/home/post/p-185759007


I might write more about this later...

love this idea I'm in, see you next week.

"All kinds of compute scaling are quite inefficient on most standard metrics. There are steady gains, but they are coming from exponentially increasing inputs."

Is this kind of the opposite of Moore's law lol?

Nice one @Toby Tremlett🔹 . If the forum dictators decide that the democratically selected topic of democratic backsliding is not allowed, I will genuinely be OK with that decision ;).

makes sense. But at least they appear to be reading too much into the data lol.

Load more