Toby Tremlett🔹

Content Manager @ CEA
3208 karmaJoined Working (0-5 years)Oxford, UK

Bio

Participation
2

Hello! I'm Toby. I'm Content Manager at CEA. I work with the Online Team to make sure the Forum is a great place to discuss doing the most good we can. You'll see me posting a lot, authoring the EA Newsletter and curating Forum Digests, making moderator comments and decisions, and more. 

Before working at CEA, I studied Philosophy at the University of Warwick, and worked for a couple of years on a range of writing and editing projects within the EA space. Recently I helped run the Amplify Creative Grants program, to encourage more impactful podcasting and YouTube projects. You can find a bit of my own creative output on my blog, and my podcast feed.

How I can help others

Reach out to me if you're worried about your first post, want to double check Forum norms, or are confused or curious about anything relating to the EA Forum.

Comments
227

Topic contributions
52

Toby Tremlett🔹
Moderator Comment4
1
0

Update: this user returned to the Forum yesterday to re-post the same piece. I've banned that account as well. Bans affect the user, not the account. 

Thanks for all your great work Lizka. I learned a lot working with you- especially from the example of focus and dedication that you gave. I'd love to get a chance to work together again in the future. 

Also- great post! 

I currently agree pretty strongly, because the basic case for the quantity of animal suffering in factory farms is very strong. My uncertainty is over the tractability, and I hope to learn more about that, and adjust my vote, during the week. 

The Debate Week banner is under construction... get your takes ready for Monday morning!

In the mean time, you can brush up on the reading list in the announcement post, or respond to this post with ideas for posts you'd like to see next week. 

This might seem obvious, but I'd love someone to write about the most promising global health interventions. Specifically, I don't know what kind of things we could achieve with $100m which would be better than just $100m to GiveWell's top charities. (For example, maybe some of these technologies could be created for $100m). 

That's fair enough Leo! It's definitely not just you. But if that was my only goal, I'd probably run a survey rather than a debate week. During this week we are hoping to see conversations which change minds, which means juggling a few goals. 

Maybe in the future (no promises) we will introduce polls or debate sliders to add in posts, and then we could get more niche and precise data. 

I'd love to see some analysis of the current cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns. I've seen some takes on the Forum (for example here) that raise concerns about corporate campaigns, but I haven't seen a substantive investigation. Depending on how it goes, it might change my vote next week. 

Thanks Leo! I remember your comment from last time, it's a fair point. 

We did consider framing the question exactly like that (i.e. splitting 100m between the two), but I decided against it. The main reason was that a vote would actually seem to project far more certainty if you had to give a precise number than with this question, which might introduce a far higher barrier to voting. The reason we have voting in a debate week is not to produce a perfectly accurate aggregation of everyone's opinion (though, all else equal, a more accurate aggregation is better), but rather to encourage and enable valuable conversation on crucial questions. So a question that is framed in a way which still makes sense and represents a preference, but will get more votes, is probably a better one. 

I do understand that the meaning of a vote is ambiguous, but this is why we are introducing commenting, so you can explain the reason behind your vote. Hopefully, this means that ambiguities like the one you mention won't matter too much. 
 

Yep- there is a trade-off in the sense that the money will go to one, and the other will miss out. I wasn't very clear in my previous comment- sorry!
What I meant is that we ideally aren't pitting human and animal welfare against each other. Most arguments, I expect, will be claiming that giving the money in one direction will increase welfare overall. In fact, this increase in welfare will accrue to either animals or humans, but the question was never "which is more deserving of welfare", it was "which option will produce the most welfare". Does that make it clearer? It's a subtler point than I thought while making it. 

Load more