I've had a drop off of non EA friends who are willing to listen to ai episodes. I think the ai stuff is repetitive. I liked the podcast more and recommended it more before the shift to focus on AI and I am an AI professional interested in safety. I think the priority should be interesting conversations.
Separately, most podcast listeners I know subscribe to podcasts. There is an effect where publishing too much may cause people to unsubscribe, when it starts to feel like spam. I doubt the main thing preventing further expansion is quantity. I don't think that a third host would meaningfully help things.
I agree with and appreciate the core premise, that since many donors give to primarily U.S. charities, as a community we should spend more effort on research to what effective causes are. I also agree that making the transfers more cash based and less beaurocratic is tractable and potentially high impact. However, I would like to note some flaws in this article.
the percent of spending on social programs is pegged at 23% of gdp. I suspect this must include social security and potentially other non discretionary and non need based public spending. 23% is much greater than the $600b figure used throughout the article. So it is misleading to equate these two numbers. Much of social security money does not go towards addressing poverty.
saying cash transfer is 10x as effective because it spends 1% on administration instead of 10% is extremely misleading. Using the amount of money given to people as the metric, it is 0.99/0.9=1.1x as effective, an extremely different number.
I am actually surprised administration fees are only 10%. This indicates to me that these programs are more cost effective than I would have otherwise assumed.
Dr David Burns through the feeling great book and feeling good podcast have had a very large positive impact on my mental health for essentially 0 cost on my end. While the feeling good app is still in beta, maybe it's worth reaching out to him (or other mental health app makers) about trialing the app in a low income country. Running a rct may be cheaper in the developing world. If app based interventions work, I'm sure the app creators would be very pleased and I imagine they may be willing to distribute freely in certain regions in exchange for the good publicity.
I just moved to nyc and was trying to figure this out. Thanks for making it!
Growth coming from YouTube recommendations makes sense. In that case I agree that more episodes is not a bad thing.
I've had a drop off of non EA friends who are willing to listen to ai episodes. I think the ai stuff is repetitive. I liked the podcast more and recommended it more before the shift to focus on AI and I am an AI professional interested in safety. I think the priority should be interesting conversations.
Separately, most podcast listeners I know subscribe to podcasts. There is an effect where publishing too much may cause people to unsubscribe, when it starts to feel like spam. I doubt the main thing preventing further expansion is quantity. I don't think that a third host would meaningfully help things.
I agree with and appreciate the core premise, that since many donors give to primarily U.S. charities, as a community we should spend more effort on research to what effective causes are. I also agree that making the transfers more cash based and less beaurocratic is tractable and potentially high impact. However, I would like to note some flaws in this article.
the percent of spending on social programs is pegged at 23% of gdp. I suspect this must include social security and potentially other non discretionary and non need based public spending. 23% is much greater than the $600b figure used throughout the article. So it is misleading to equate these two numbers. Much of social security money does not go towards addressing poverty.
saying cash transfer is 10x as effective because it spends 1% on administration instead of 10% is extremely misleading. Using the amount of money given to people as the metric, it is 0.99/0.9=1.1x as effective, an extremely different number.
I am actually surprised administration fees are only 10%. This indicates to me that these programs are more cost effective than I would have otherwise assumed.
Dr David Burns through the feeling great book and feeling good podcast have had a very large positive impact on my mental health for essentially 0 cost on my end. While the feeling good app is still in beta, maybe it's worth reaching out to him (or other mental health app makers) about trialing the app in a low income country. Running a rct may be cheaper in the developing world. If app based interventions work, I'm sure the app creators would be very pleased and I imagine they may be willing to distribute freely in certain regions in exchange for the good publicity.