Cross-commenting from lesswrong for future reference:
I had an opportunity to ask an individual from one of the mentioned labs about plans to use external evaluators and they said something along the lines of:
“External evaluators are very slow - we are just far better at eliciting capabilities from our models.”
They earlier said something much to the same effect when I asked if they’d been surprised by anything people had used deployed LLMs for so far, ‘in the wild’. Essentially, no, not really, maybe even a bit underwhelmed.
Hi, I’m off the project now, but to my knowledge it is still hibernating (unless otherwise announced I think it will be, and I believe such an effort would be contingent on a serious matching funds opportunity).
Liked the post, has likely shifted me moreso toward less diversification and hedging my altruistic bets.
Regarding the title, upon first reading it I did a double take that this post might be about diversity in EA! I could see it currently being a bit more ambiguous than something like “against philanthropic diversification”. Though I also think that this is my personal context and might be silly (my context understanding diversity as social as opposed to finance).
Hi! AE Studio is working on some (Dr. Seuss-inspired) children's books to also share EA and EA-adjacent ideas, here's one we've been working on (happy to receive feedback too):
We are currently in steps to publish our first book like this, one on personal finance, and we have written the script for another inspired by Peter Singer's pond illustration.
I have recently been learning how to publish (through IngramSpark) and may be able to help a little bit with that sort of stuff too if you'd like! Would generally be excited to connect!
Seems like it could be a case of trying to maintain some sort of standard of high fidelity with EA ideas? Avoid dilution in the community and of the term by not too eagerly labeling ideas as “EA”.
I had never considered the first point regarding a local maximum - interesting thing to explore but I’m unsure, except perhaps in a more ideal world, that we are at all capable of consistently getting more than local maxes at times (and yeah dogs seem to be one of the best (easiest) one-time actions someone can take for their happiness (https://jamesclear.com/how-to-automate-a-habit), author surveys his own audience and they produce this tidbit and it matches my intuition).
And this sort of strikes me of my impression of dog-free (or pet-free?) as a movement overall - I recall a friend discussing it with me as a potential ongoing moral catastrophe that people in the future would be horrified with - which I agree with (particularly with the pug example (I can imagine this being extrapolated to all dogs somewhat perhaps), as you said!) but I feel quite horrified by a lot of more horrifying things now than this specific cause area (others with way more scale). It feels like a step for later moral progress, somewhat along the lines of the discounting argument: “people are starving now, why pursue better lives for animals before them.” (I don’t really subscribe to this argument).
I think the idea of dogs replacing children is really interesting and I will definitely think about that a bit more in the future!
unfortunately it seems "Cee Gee" has won
meta and trying to be humorous:
i don't see any forum references to Coefficient Giving as "CoGive" and thought I'd invest early
Cross-commenting from lesswrong for future reference:
I had an opportunity to ask an individual from one of the mentioned labs about plans to use external evaluators and they said something along the lines of:
“External evaluators are very slow - we are just far better at eliciting capabilities from our models.”
They earlier said something much to the same effect when I asked if they’d been surprised by anything people had used deployed LLMs for so far, ‘in the wild’. Essentially, no, not really, maybe even a bit underwhelmed.
Hi, I’m off the project now, but to my knowledge it is still hibernating (unless otherwise announced I think it will be, and I believe such an effort would be contingent on a serious matching funds opportunity).
Liked the post, has likely shifted me moreso toward less diversification and hedging my altruistic bets.
Regarding the title, upon first reading it I did a double take that this post might be about diversity in EA! I could see it currently being a bit more ambiguous than something like “against philanthropic diversification”. Though I also think that this is my personal context and might be silly (my context understanding diversity as social as opposed to finance).
Here’s the most Dr. Seuss version that we are putting together for publication: https://www.thecashthatyoustash.com/
Hi! AE Studio is working on some (Dr. Seuss-inspired) children's books to also share EA and EA-adjacent ideas, here's one we've been working on (happy to receive feedback too):
https://www.yourlivingandgiving.com/
We are currently in steps to publish our first book like this, one on personal finance, and we have written the script for another inspired by Peter Singer's pond illustration.
I have recently been learning how to publish (through IngramSpark) and may be able to help a little bit with that sort of stuff too if you'd like! Would generally be excited to connect!
Just to further update, the limit of one recurring donation was brought back down to $100 recently, as I know Will is already aware.
Seems like it could be a case of trying to maintain some sort of standard of high fidelity with EA ideas? Avoid dilution in the community and of the term by not too eagerly labeling ideas as “EA”.
I had never considered the first point regarding a local maximum - interesting thing to explore but I’m unsure, except perhaps in a more ideal world, that we are at all capable of consistently getting more than local maxes at times (and yeah dogs seem to be one of the best (easiest) one-time actions someone can take for their happiness (https://jamesclear.com/how-to-automate-a-habit), author surveys his own audience and they produce this tidbit and it matches my intuition).
And this sort of strikes me of my impression of dog-free (or pet-free?) as a movement overall - I recall a friend discussing it with me as a potential ongoing moral catastrophe that people in the future would be horrified with - which I agree with (particularly with the pug example (I can imagine this being extrapolated to all dogs somewhat perhaps), as you said!) but I feel quite horrified by a lot of more horrifying things now than this specific cause area (others with way more scale). It feels like a step for later moral progress, somewhat along the lines of the discounting argument: “people are starving now, why pursue better lives for animals before them.” (I don’t really subscribe to this argument).
I think the idea of dogs replacing children is really interesting and I will definitely think about that a bit more in the future!
Thanks for sharing.