Original post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/fSmBYeTyisyM9fkmD/p/ysHq3K2asNwsCRWeG

Read & edited by Sam Nolan

This post is the introduction to the sequence, Improving the EA-Aligned Research Pipeline by MichaelA. The sequence discusses the problems with the current system for EA aligned research, and issues with allocating resources (particularly human resources) effectively. It also discusses possible intervention options to solve these bottlenecks in the research pipeline.

This episode is an introduction to the sequence. The rest of the sequence is:

The rest of the sequence is, as of writing this, yet to be published, but hopefully will be soon!

The links in this post can be found by browsing the original post above.

Original post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3voXaqvPutSrHvuCT/the-case-against-ea-cause-areas

Read & edited by Garrett Baker

Everyone reasonably familiar with EA knows that AI safety, pandemic  preparedness, animal welfare and global poverty are considered EA cause  areas, whereas feminism, LGBT rights, wildlife conservation and dental  hygiene aren't.

The state of some very specific cause areas being  held in high regard by the EA community is the result of long  deliberations by many thoughtful people who have reasoned that work in  these areas could be highly effective. This collective cause  prioritization is often the outcome of weighing and comparing the scale, tractability and neglectedness of different causes. Neglectedness in particular seems to play a  crucial role in swaying the attention of many EAs and concluding, for  example, that working on pandemic preparedness is likely more promising  than working on climate change, due to the different levels of attention  that these causes currently receive worldwide. Some cause areas, such  as AI safety and global poverty, have gained so much attention within EA  (both in absolute terms and, more so, compared to the general public)  that the EA movement has become somewhat identified with them.

Prioritizing  and comparing cause areas is at the very core of EA. Nevertheless, I  would like to argue that while cause prioritization is extremely  important and should continue, having the EA movement identified with specific cause areas has negative consequences.  I would like to highlight the negative aspects of having such a large  fraction of the attention and resources of EA going into such a small  number of causes, and present the case for more cause diversification  and pluralism within EA.

Original post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/YCa8BRQoxKbmf5CJb/p/vQpk3cxdAe5RX9xzo

Read & Edited by Garrett Baker

Spoilers ahead — listen to the episode beforehand if you don’t want to hear a rough summary first.

I quite liked the "Playing God" episode of RadioLab.

The topic is triage,  the practice of assigning priority to different patients in emergency  medicine. By extension, to triage means to ration scarce resources. The  episode treats triage as a rare phenomenon– in fact, it suggests that  medical triage protocols were not taken very seriously in the US until  after Hurricane Katrina– but triage is not a rare phenomenon at all. We  are engaging in triage with every decision we make.

The stories in “Playing God” are gripping, particularly the story of a  New Orleans hospital thrown into hell in a matter of days after losing  power during Hurricane Katrina. Sheri Fink from the New York Times discusses the events she reported in her book, Five Days at Memorial. The close-up details are difficult to stomach. After evacuating the  intensive care unit, the hospital staff are forced to rank the remaining  patients for evacuation; moving the patients is backbreaking labor  without the elevators, and helicopters and boats are only coming  sporadically to take them away. Sewage is backing up into the hospital  and the extreme heat is causing some patients and pets to have seizures.

Original post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/YCa8BRQoxKbmf5CJb/p/5EqJozsDdHcF7dpPL

In this talk from EAGxBerkeley 2016, Ajeya Cotra shares what led  her to join the effective altruism movement, then provides an overview  of its basic principles.

Original post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LpkXtFXdsRd4rG8Kb/reducing-long-term-risks-from-malevolent-actors

Read by: Wuschel

Edited by: Garrett Baker

In this section  I’ll go over the strategies used by players, final scores, and the  winner of the tournament. For the actual outcomes of the predictions,  see the appendix.

The  most common strategy I observed was when a question’s outcome could be  influenced by player behaviour, players would predict an outcome with  99% confidence then devise a plan to make their predicted outcome  happen. One player even made a to-do list:

Original post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/347gJg88ZxxE7Jhch/i-ran-a-forecasting-tournament-at-an-ea-retreat-here-s-what

Read & edited by Garrett Baker

This post describes a simple forecasting tournament I ran during  the 2021 Effective Altruism New Zealand retreat as an experimental  exercise in improving judgement and decision making. I asked players to  predict whether certain events would occur within the span of the  retreat, like whether Peter Singer would post to Instagram, or whether  anyone would lose their hat.

The tournament was  surprisingly fun, and went in many unexpected directions. I would  strongly encourage other EA retreats and similar gatherings to run their  own prediction tournaments, and I provide some resources to get started.

A summary of this post:

The  art of forecasting is an important part of the Effective Altruism  extended universe. There are at least three reasons for this. First, if  you can predict which problems are going to be important in the future,  then you can start preparing solutions now (unaligned AI, runaway  nanotech, engineered pandemics...) Secondly, if you can predict the  future conditional on your actions, then you can choose  interventions which do more good for longer (if we transfer cash to poor  countries, will this help them build a self-sustaining economy, or will  it foster dependence and fragility?) Thirdly, in a broad sense, good  forecasting requires clear thinking and improves decision-making, which  are virtues we want to cultivate in building a wiser society. In other  words, cultivating forecasting skills is an act of everyday longtermism.

Original post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/HGLK3igGprWQPHfAp/against-neutrality-about-creating-happy-lives

Narration by: The Girl Reading This

Editing by: Garrett Baker

(Warning: spoilers for the movie American Beauty.)

Various  philosophers have tried hard to validate the so-called “intuition of  neutrality,” according to which the fact that someone would live a  wonderful life, if created, is not itself reason to create them (see  e.g. Frick (2014) for efforts in this vicinity). The oft-quoted slogan from Jan Narveson is: “We are in favor of making people happy, but neutral about making happy people” (p. 80).

I  don’t have the neutrality intuition. To the contrary, I think that  creating someone who will live a wonderful life is to do, for them,  something incredibly significant and worthwhile. Exactly how to weigh  this against other considerations in different contexts is an additional  and substantially more complex question. But I feel very far from neutral about  it, and I’d hope that others, in considering whether to create me,  wouldn’t feel neutral, either. This post tries to point at why.

Original post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ozyQ7PwhRgP7D9b2w/new-org-canning-what-we-give

Narration by: Pixel Brownie Software (Prownie)

Editing by: Garrett Baker

Epistemic status: 30% (plus or minus 50%). Further details at the bottom.

In the 2019 EA Cause Prioritisation survey,  Global Poverty remains the most popular single cause across the sample  as a whole. But after more engagement with EA, around 42% of people  change their cause area, and of that, a majority (54%) moved towards the  Long Term Future/Catastrophic and Existential Risk Reduction.

While many people find that donations help them stay engaged (and continue to be a great thing to do), there has been much discussion of other ways people can contribute positively.

In thinking about the long-run future, one area of research has been improving human's resilience to disasters. A 2014 paper looked at global refuges, and more recently ALLFED, among others, have studied ways to feed humanity in disaster scenarios.

There  is much work done, and even much more needed, to directly reduce risks  such as through pandemic preparedness, improving nuclear treaties, and  improving the functioning of international institutions.

But we  believe that there are still opportunities to increase resilience in  disaster scenarios. Wouldn't it be great if there was a way to directly  link the simplicity of donations with effective methods for the recovery  of civilisation?

Original post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/i24sXY8v6FXLyJKXF/why-ea-groups-should-not-use-effective-altruism-in-their

Narration by Liam Nolan

Editing by Garrett Baker

One of my teachers, a social entrepreneur, once told me: “when you are doing any kind of project, first make sure to give it a good name.” These words ran through my mind when I, together with five others,  started a new EA student association at Erasmus University Rotterdam in  the Netherlands.

At our second collective meeting we decided against the name  “Effective Altruism Erasmus” and  opted for “Positive Impact Society  Erasmus” (PISE) instead. Now, 6 months in, we still believe this was a  great decision. Our association is doing well, and we believe that our  name has had some part in that.

As we speak, more Dutch EA groups  are considering changing their name. Maastricht University’s chapter is  already called “LEAP” (Local Effective Altruism Project) and the group  at Wageningen University is also considering a name change.

We  think we should have a movement wide conversation about “Effective  Altruism” as the name for local and university groups. Below we have  written down our thoughts on two questions: firstly, should local and university groups have a name other than “Effective Altruism X”? Secondly, if so, what should that name be? Lastly, we propose a common subtitle for all EA groups with an  alternative name. Our thoughts are far from complete and we are  uncertain on many accounts. We invite anyone to add to the discussion!