Quality press sounds like an intelligent idea to be associated with the EA brand.
I wonder if we could convey simple ideas through influencers without them mentioning EA. For instance, what if we paid an influencer to compare how much money it costs for various charities to complete their goals? We don't need to mention EA, but it may give many charities a significant boost in awareness and (probably) donations.
The part about being associated with specific influencers could be a major downfall. If someone gains a negative reputation on the internet, will the movement as a whole suffer? Quite possibly.
I'm unsure about whether EA being a low resolution household name would be net good or bad. I wonder how often people don't give to charity because it's too much effort to find good organizations. If this is a legitimate problem, having EA in the back of their mind might make it easier to donate without thinking about it. Also, it may simply introduce people to the concept that we can measure the usefulness of charities, and we have a really good idea of which ones are the best.
Selecting for nerdiness and curiosity is great, but I believe EA becoming a household name will attract more nerdy, curious people. I believe there are lots of people who would be involved in EA, but simply don't know it exists. I don't think we should expect people to find EA by themselves- part of our job should be to pique their interest.
I follow a lot of internet debaters, and I'm just not seeing that sort of stuff in the EA space. Why? Youtube is a great place for people to hash out ideas, have conversations, and for the audience to get involved. Blogs aren't as accessible as long form video content.
As for short-form content, it has a lot of downsides. The upside however, is that we can reach a lot of people with a single message, which I believe could have large scale political influence (something I believe EA lacks).
What is EA's stance on Gain-of-Function Research? (OC)
I recently interviewed a Columbia University parasitologist on GOF research. I picked him, in part, because he was strongly in favor of conducting GOF. According to him, the risks are minimal, and the benefits far outweigh them.
I'm not a scientist (obviously), but I can't say I agree with the entirety of his argument on the risks. Smallpox has been released from the lab 3 times, so we know that human error has allowed a deadly virus to escape from a lab and kill people.
It's pretty obvious that GOF has a lot of upsides though. Many scientists studying it are conducting this research explicitly to prevent pandemics in the future.
It doesn't seem obvious to me which route will produce the least risk.
Maybe we should send all scientists doing this kind of research into a quarantine bubble, and have them do 6 weeks on/6 weeks off shifts. Other than that, I'm out of ideas.
Great questions! Can you clarify a little more on how safety and capabilities work is interconnected?
Quality press sounds like an intelligent idea to be associated with the EA brand.
I wonder if we could convey simple ideas through influencers without them mentioning EA. For instance, what if we paid an influencer to compare how much money it costs for various charities to complete their goals? We don't need to mention EA, but it may give many charities a significant boost in awareness and (probably) donations.
Followed! Keep up the good work!
The part about being associated with specific influencers could be a major downfall. If someone gains a negative reputation on the internet, will the movement as a whole suffer? Quite possibly.
I'm unsure about whether EA being a low resolution household name would be net good or bad. I wonder how often people don't give to charity because it's too much effort to find good organizations. If this is a legitimate problem, having EA in the back of their mind might make it easier to donate without thinking about it. Also, it may simply introduce people to the concept that we can measure the usefulness of charities, and we have a really good idea of which ones are the best.
Selecting for nerdiness and curiosity is great, but I believe EA becoming a household name will attract more nerdy, curious people. I believe there are lots of people who would be involved in EA, but simply don't know it exists. I don't think we should expect people to find EA by themselves- part of our job should be to pique their interest.
I follow a lot of internet debaters, and I'm just not seeing that sort of stuff in the EA space. Why? Youtube is a great place for people to hash out ideas, have conversations, and for the audience to get involved. Blogs aren't as accessible as long form video content.
As for short-form content, it has a lot of downsides. The upside however, is that we can reach a lot of people with a single message, which I believe could have large scale political influence (something I believe EA lacks).
What is EA's stance on Gain-of-Function Research? (OC)
I recently interviewed a Columbia University parasitologist on GOF research. I picked him, in part, because he was strongly in favor of conducting GOF. According to him, the risks are minimal, and the benefits far outweigh them.
I'm not a scientist (obviously), but I can't say I agree with the entirety of his argument on the risks. Smallpox has been released from the lab 3 times, so we know that human error has allowed a deadly virus to escape from a lab and kill people.
It's pretty obvious that GOF has a lot of upsides though. Many scientists studying it are conducting this research explicitly to prevent pandemics in the future.
It doesn't seem obvious to me which route will produce the least risk.
Maybe we should send all scientists doing this kind of research into a quarantine bubble, and have them do 6 weeks on/6 weeks off shifts. Other than that, I'm out of ideas.
Clip of the interview if you're interested:
Here's the full video: