Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Job listing (open): Two positions at Malengo, published by Johannes Haushofer on September 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Dear all,

I hope you're well! Our new NGO Malengo, whose mission is to facilitate international educational migration, has had a good year: we more than doubled our program, and 18 young Ugandans are on their way to Germany to start their Bachelor's degrees. In the coming years we want to grow to many hundreds of students each year.

We're now looking to grow our team: We're hiring a Country Director for Germany, and a Senior Program Manager — Africa. Both jobs have great conditions; e.g. we offer unlimited time off, and very competitive salaries. Here are the detailed descriptions: Country Director Germany: Program Manager — Africa: information about Malengo is on our website: help us spread the word by sharing this widely! And please apply if you want to join us!

Many thanks and best wishes,

Johannes

PS: Here is this year's cohort at a reception organized for them by the German Embassy in Kampala:

Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: 7 learnings from 3 years running a corporate EA Group, published by Conor McGurk on September 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Thanks to my co-organizers, Will Hastings, John Yan, Denisse Sevastian and Farhan Azam for their input and feedback on this post

3 years ago, I founded the Effective Altruism @ Meta corporate interest group. We’ve had middling success in drumming up interest for EA at the company, and thought it may be useful to share some of our learnings for others doing the same thing. I wouldn’t assume that these learnings necessarily generalize to other corporate settings, but I’m eager to hear from others on what does and doesn't resonate.

1. Finding committed organizers is difficult in a corporate setting

In a higher intensity environment like Meta, people don’t have much time to commit to activities outside of their core responsibilities. We cycled through 8-10 organizers before we finally found a more committed group of 3-4. Most other organizers flaked and eventually stopped attending events altogether.

Beyond being busy with their day jobs, there are a few other reasons I think people consistently flaked: first, unlike a city or university community, there is no additional personal incentive to volunteer your time. Individuals are not in need of financial compensation, and holding volunteer positions does not meaningfully further their careers. Secondly, given organizers are not colocated and have varied time zones, it can be hard to find consistent times for organizers to interact.

Ultimately, the organizers that stuck around seemed to be motivated by two things. First, most were independently excited about effective altruism and inherently motivated by the altruistic goals of the group. Secondly, they were more integrated with the social elements of our group: hosting events and attending meetings was their primary way to connect with other EAs.

2. Community & discussion oriented activities are probably high ROI

Fairly early on in our work at Meta we started a bi-weekly discussion group. We would host a poll for discussion topics a few days before, and had an open meeting to discuss the top-voted item for 45 minutes. Actual attendance for these events were low - rarely more than 10 attendees per session - but through regular attendees we eventually found consistent organizers and several individuals that took more serious EA actions. Many of these individuals took donation pledges, several helped us organize events and raise money, attended EAGs, and some considered or are taking career pivots. It’s obviously hard to assess counterfactual impact, but given that for most of these individuals this was their primary interaction with other EAs and EA ideas, it seems likely that their further EA actions were attributable to us.

The actual investment in setting up this regular social community where we discussed EA ideas was negligible. We crowd-sourced discussion topics or pulled from personal reading or existing databases, and advertised the meeting once every two weeks. By that measure, this was possibly the highest ROI activity we took.

3. Speaker events are probably low ROI

Most of our tactical efforts were online events targeted at exposing Meta employees to EA ideas or effective giving principles. Our very first event had Peter Singer come speak about EA principles, and afterwards we had speakers from ACE, GiveDirectly, Google Brain, Giving What We Can, 1 For the World, and a slew of other EA-aligned organizations. Events were meaningful amounts of work to set up, as they involved internal approvals, event logistics, and internal advertising to ensure attendance.

Despite the medium-high lift to run an event, we became increasingly skeptical that the events were high impact. Actual event attendance numbers were low: smaller events would ...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Transparency for improving weird feelings around community building, published by ChanaMessinger on September 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

There's a lot of potential ick as things in EA formalize and professionalize, especially in community building. People might reasonably feel uncomfortable realizing that the intro talk they heard is entirely scripted, or that interactions with them have been logged in a spreadsheet or that the events they've been to are taking them through the ideas on a path from least to most weird (all things I've heard of happening, with a range of how confident I am in them actually happening as described here). I think there's a lot to say here about how to productively engage with this feeling (and things community builders should do to mitigate it), but I also think there's a quick trick that will markedly improve things (though do not fix all problems): transparency.

(This is an outside take from someone who doesn't do community building on college campuses or elsewhere, I think that work is hard and filled with paradoxes, and it's also possible that this is already done by default, but in the spirit of stating the obvious)

I've been updating over and over again over the last few years that earnestness is just very powerful, and I think there are ways (though maybe they require some social / communication skills that aren't universal) to say things like (conditional on them being true):

NB: I don't think these are the best versions of these scripts, this was a first pass to point at the thing I mean

"This EA group is one of many around the country and the world. There is a standard intro talk that contains framings we think are exceptionally useful and helps us make sure we don't miss any of the important ideas or caveats, so we are giving it here today. I am excited to convey these core concepts, and then for the group of people who come in subsequent weeks to figure out which aspects of these they're most interested in pursuing and customizing the group to our needs."

"Hey, I'm excited to talk to you about EA stuff. The organizers of this group are hoping to chat with people who seem interested and not be repetitive or annoying to you, would it be ok with you if I took some notes on our conversation that other organizers can see?"

"EA ideas span a huge gamut from really straightforward to high-context / less conventional. These early dinners start with the less weird ones because we think the core ideas are really valuable to the world whether or not people buy some of the other potential implications. Later on, with more context, we'll explore a wider range."

"I get that the perception that people only get funding or help if they seem interested in EA is uncomfortable / seems bad. From my perspective, I'm engaged in a particular project with my EA time / volunteer time / career / donations / life, and I'm excited to find people who are enthused by that same project and want to work together on it. If people find this is not the project for them, that's a great thing to have learned, and I'm excited for them to find people to work with on the things they care about most"

Not everything needs to be explicit, but this at least tracks whether you're passing the red face test.

I think that being transparent in this way requires:

Some communication skills to convey things like the above with nuance and grace

Being able to track when explicitness is bad or unhelpful

Some social skills in tracking what the other person cares about and is looking for in conversations

Non-self-hatingness: Thinking that you are doing something valuable, that matters to you, that you don't have to apologize for caring about, along with its implications

A willingness to be honest and earnest about the above.

Thanks for listening. To help us out with Th...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: "A Creepy Feeling": Nixon's Decision to Disavow Biological Weapons, published by ThomasW on September 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

I wrote this paper for a class in December 2021. I had been meaning to put it up on the forum for a while, but only just now got around to it. I found this research useful for my own understanding of the kinds of events that can contribute to dramatic policy changes. At the end I mention the obvious relevance to autonomous weapons regulation, but I think that lessons learned apply to all kinds of regulation of dangerous technologies.

In September of 1950, a ship sailed by the Golden Gate Bridge. It carried a stockpile of Serratia marcescens bacteria, which it released in a huge plume over the city of San Francisco. Those onboard hoped to expose as many people as possible to the bacteria. Their mission was a success, and most of the city’s residents were exposed.

The ship was not operated by a hostile foreign government or terrorist operatives, but by the United States Navy. Though Serratia marcescens is a “simulant” bacterium not known to cause harm, the test showed the potential for attacks with more deadly forms of bacteria. Despite the “benign” nature of the bacterium, Stanford University doctors reported several bizarre cases of urinary tract infections at the time, leading eventually to one death. The test was far from the only biological weapons test conducted in secrecy by the U.S. government from World War II until as late as 1968.

On November 25th, 1969, President Richard Nixon gave a speech to the American public following a briefing to Congress. He announced the United States would renounce the use of biological weapons, destroy its stockpiles, and research only what was necessary to defend against possible attacks from enemies. He also voiced support for a United Kingdom initiative to ban biological weapons internationally, which would eventually become the Biological Weapons Convention.

How did the United States go from biological weapons testing on its own population to leading the world in opposition to biological weapons? Historians have offered many possible explanations.

One common argument is that public pressure forced Nixon’s hand. In a 2002 paper, Jonathan B. Tucker, a CBW expert and then a researcher at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, specifically emphasizes television reports in early 1969 and their contribution to increased awareness of the weapons. Brian Balmer and Alex Spelling of University College London conducted a 2016 analysis of contemporaneous newspaper articles about biological weapons, finding that they routinely portrayed biological weapons as dangerous even if they presented mixed messages about their effectiveness. Robert W. McElroy, a prelate of the Catholic church, included a discussion of CBW in a 1992 book, stressing in particular the idea that the public viewed such weapons as morally repugnant. I will argue that public pressure was a significant factor behind Nixon’s decision, but that it was not sufficient to convince Nixon that renouncing biological weapons would be safe.

A second argument is that international pressure created an environment where the American position was untenable. James Revill, a research fellow at the University of Sussex, wrote in a 2018 article that international arms control was a major factor, while also suggesting that the renunciation may have been an attempt to deflect attention from the Vietnam War as well as a response to the advocacy of international organizations. McElroy also discussed international opposition, again from a moral perspective, and Tucker acknowledged it as well. I will argue that while international developments were important in shaping Nixon’s decision, they were not his primary motivation.

A third argument was ...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: About going to a hub, published by ChanaMessinger on September 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

A response to: For people who consider taking or end up taking this advice, some things I'd say if we were having a 1:1 coffee about it:

Being away from home is by its nature intense, this community and the philosophy is intense, and some social dynamics here are unusual, I want you to go in with some sense of the landscape so you can make informed decisions about how to engage.

The culture here is full of energy and ambition and truth telling. That's really awesome, but it can be a tricky adjustment. In some spaces, you'll hear a lot of frank discussion of talent and fit (e.g. people might dissuade you from starting a project not because the project is a bad idea but because they don't think you're a good fit for it). Grounding in your own self worth (and your own inside views) will probably be really important.

People both are and seem really smart. It's easy to just believe them when they say things. Remember to flag for yourself things you've just heard versus things you've discussed at length vs things you've really thought about yourself. Try to ask questions about the gears of people's models, ask for credences and cruxes. Remember that people disagree, including about very big questions. Notice the difference between people's offhand hot takes and their areas of expertise. We want you to be someone who can disagree with high status people, who can think for themselves, who is in touch with reality.

I'd recommend staying grounded with friends/connections/family outside the EA space. Making friends over the summer is great, and some of them may be deep connections you can rely on, but as with all new friends and people, you don't have as much evidence about how those connections will develop over time or with any shifts in your relationships or situations. It's easy to get really attached and connected to people in the new space, and that might be great, but I'd keep track of your level of emotional dependency on them.

We use the word "community" but I wouldn't go in assuming that if you come on your own you'll find a waiting, welcoming pre -made social scene, or that people will have the capacity to proactively take you under their wing, look out for you and your well being, especially if there are lots of people in a similar boat. I don't want you to feel like you've been promised anything in particular here. That might be up to you to make for yourself.

One thing that's intense is the way that the personal and professional networks overlap, so keep that in mind as you think about how you might keep your head on straight and what support you might need if your job situation changes, you have a bad roommate experience, you date and break up with someone (maybe get a friend's take on the EV of casual hookups or dating during this intense time, given that the emotional effects might last a while and play out in your professional life - you know yourself best and how that might play out for you).

This might be a good place to flag that just because people are EAs doesn't mean they're automatically nice or trustworthy, pay attention to your own sense of how to interact with strangers.

I'd recommend reading this post on power dynamics in EA.

Read CS Lewis 's The Inner Ring

Feeling lonely or ungrounded or uncertain is normal. There is lots of discussion on the forum about people feeling this way and what they've done about it. There is an EA peer support Facebook group where you can post anonymously if you want. If you're in more need than that, you can contact Julia Wise or Catherine Low on the community health team.

As per my other comment, some of this networking is constrained by capacity. Similarly, I wouldn't go in assuming you'll find a mentor or office sp...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: List of donation opportunities (focus: non-US longtermist policy work), published by weeatquince on September 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Introduction

In the past I have written on the EA Forum about where I am donating (2019, 2021). This year I have a dilemma. I have too many places I am excited to investigate and potentially donate too.

I have a document where I have been listing opportunities I am excited by and thought why not share my list with others in the run up to the giving season. In my opinion there are a lot of EA projects lacking funding. I believe donors (especially medium-size non-US donors) who could evaluate and fund some of these would have an outsized impact, more impact than just giving to various EA Funds (in fact this post is a follow up of a red team post on the LTFF). Also I am also interested in feedback and criticism of my donation list as I plan to donate to at least some of the places listed below (to be decided).

The primary focus is on longtermist/ EA policy work. By policy work I am considering organisations that directly influence current policy so it is better for the long run future (not just indirectly doing policy-adjacent academic research or supporting individuals policy careers, etc). I list a few ideas on other cause areas at the end. Note that not every org/person listed considers themselves to be EA affiliated.

This list has about 25-30 funding ideas, ranging $15,000 to $4m, of which I estimate perhaps 66% are worth funding if investigated.

I want to caveat this with some warnings:

Expect inaccuracies: Not every org has had a chance to input. Also some details might be out of date – this list has been growing for a while now and some orgs may now have funding (or have run out of funding).

Expect conflicts of interest: I have worked with and/or helped and/or am friends with the staff at and/or am an adviser/affiliate at a lot of the organisations I list. The only organisations listed that have paid me for work are the APPG for Future Generations and Charity Entrepreneurship. As a rule of thumb, assume I have some bias towards funding this kind of work.

Background reasoning – why policy?

Why fund policy work?

Influencing policy is an effective way to drive change in the world. It is the key focus of advocacy groups and campaigns around the globe and seen as one of the most high impact ways to affect society for the better.

This applies to existential risks. 80000 Hours research suggests there are two ways to protect the future from anthropogenic risks: technical work and governance/policy work (e.g. see here on AI). There are many things to advocate for that would protect the future. See here for a list of 250 longtermist policy ideas and see (mostly UK focused) collections of policy ideas on long-term institutions and biosecurity and ensuring AI regulation goes well and malevolent actors.

Furthermore EA policy change work which is targeted and impact focused and carefully measured can be extremely effective. Analysis of 100s of historical policy change campaigns (look across various reports here) suggests a new EA charity spending around $1-1.5m, has a 10-50% chance driving a major policy change. And existing EA charities seem even more effective than that. The APPG for Future Generations seemed to consistently drive a policy change for every ~$50k. LEEP seems to have driven their first policy change for under ~$50k and seems on track to keep driving changes at that level.

Why might policy work be underfunded?

In short there is a lack of funders with the motivation and capability to fund this work.

Some funders are avoiding funding policy work. The Long Term Future Fund (LTFF) does not fund any new policy work and is sceptical of policy work (see here). As far as I can tell OpenPhil’s longtermist teams appear to...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Database of EA-relevant US policy fellowships, published by US Policy Careers on September 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Policy work is an important lever to have a positive impact in many EA-relevant cause areas—AI, biosecurity, animal welfare, global health, etc. The US government is especially influential, suggesting that policy work in the US can be particularly impactful.

If you are looking for opportunities to explore, pivot into, or accelerate your US policy career, you should consider applying for relevant US policy fellowships.

This post briefly explains what US policy fellowships are and introduces a new database with 40+ fellowship opportunities. It includes opportunities for people from various backgrounds (STEM, social sciences, etc.) and career levels (undergrad to mid-career). The database allows you to filter by cause area, degree requirements, location, and more. Please use this form if you have any feedback on the database or would like to suggest any additions or corrections.

If you are interested in applying for any of these fellowships—including if you are still unsure or plan to apply in future years—we encourage you to fill in this form so that we can potentially support your application and connect you with others who have gone through the program.

Introduction to policy fellowships

There are dozens of US policy fellowships aiming to help people with different backgrounds and career stages gain first-hand policy experience. These programs can provide opportunities to work for US executive agencies, Congress, or think tanks. Other common fellowship benefits include funding, training, mentoring, networking opportunities, application support, and the possibility of post-fellowship employment. Moreover, policy fellowships are often competitive and prestigious, providing a valuable credential.

What is meant by a “fellowship” can differ substantially as the term is not used consistently. The structure, benefits, and eligibility requirements may vary widely depending on the program. Many fellowships offer full-time placements in host organizations, while others provide part-time training and mentoring, and some “fellowships” are simply scholarships or internships.

Alternatives to fellowships for those seeking to work in US policy include doing a policy-relevant graduate degree (ideally in Washington, DC) and applying directly for policy jobs or internships. Potential advantages of policy fellowships over these alternatives include:

easier to get into without prior policy experience than most jobs (many are designed as bridge programs for people from non-traditional backgrounds such as tech)

better paid than most internships and provide more post-completion employment opportunities

better and cheaper (time-wise) for career exploration than graduate school

additional benefits (e.g., training, networking, prestige)

Examples of US policy fellowships include the Open Philanthropy Technology Policy Fellowship, the Presidential Management Fellowship, the Scoville Fellowship, and the STPI Science Policy Fellowship.

The fellowship database

We created a database of US policy fellowships, currently listing more than 40 opportunities.

Limitations

The database is a work in progress, and we appreciate any feedback (e.g., fellowships we missed, factual errors, better ways to structure the table) via this form or in the comments. The database does not aim to be comprehensive and focuses on fellowships most likely to be relevant to those interested in EA cause areas. Many (but far from all) of the programs included have a US national security focus and may be most relevant to people seeking to work in policy to reduce global catastrophic risks, especially from AI and pandemics.

The database only includes US federal fellowships, not those at the state or l...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Eli's review of "Is power-seeking AI an existential risk?", published by elifland on September 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Covid 9/29/22: The Jones Act Waver, published by Zvi on September 29, 2022 on LessWrong.

The pandemic is over. Long live the Public Health Emergency.

HHS is set to extend the Covid-19 public health emergency by its standing deadline of Oct. 13.

If renewed on the deadline of Oct. 13, the next deadline would be Jan. 11, 2023.

This would make for the 11th renewal of the PHE since its declaration in January 2020 by former and current HHS secretaries Alex Azar and Xavier Becerra, respectively.

The renewal would occur as HHS plans to shift costs of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments to the commercial market, a process beginning this fall that is expected to take months.

Hospitals have advocated for the PHE’s extension.

There can be no clearer proof of the abuse of an emergency than extending it after publicly declaring that it is over.

Executive Summary

Covid is over but somehow also still an ‘emergency.’

Potential new treatment for Covid doing well in clinical trials.

Some people will continue to do way too much prevention for a long time.

Let’s run the numbers.

The Numbers

Kansas reported 476 deaths, of which I removed 400 as a presumed backlog.

I decided not to remove the 12,098 positive tests in Hawaii, although I am skeptical.

Prediction from last week: 330k cases (-9%) and 2,600 deaths (-8%).

Result: 316k cases (-11%) and 2,813 deaths (-2%).

Prediction for next week: 290k cases (-9%) and 2,750 deaths (-3%).

Mildly surprising not to see a larger decline in deaths.

I saw claims in my feeds earlier this week that we were seeing increases in cases in New York and other Northeastern states as new strains take over. The numbers don’t back that up and we continue to not see anything scary on that front.

Predictions

Deaths

Cases

BA.2.75.2

The contrast between how BA.2.75.2 and other recent variants are being covered and noticed, and how previous strains that grew at similar rates were being covered, is striking.

This certainly does have a lot of signs of big trouble (paper).

Thing is, the paper said that BA.2.75.2 had ‘profound escape’ yet it is being outcompeted by a different strain, BF.7, which is a substrain of BA.5.

Optimistic Chise thread on the study on Omicron boosters from last time.

Bloom Lab thread on another study, showing B-cells more ready for Omicron 6 months out than 1 month out from a shot. New information has updated me towards Omicron boosters being a modestly better deal than expected.

Physical World Modeling

Japanese Covid treatment drug shows promise in Phase III trial (Reuters).

More study evidence that bivalent boosters work just in time for new strains to take over and throw the whole thing into question again. In humans, even, and overcoming worries about ‘original antigenic sin.’ While the new shots may or may not be worth the side effects, we continue to get corroborating evidence that they work.

The argument that healthy people shouldn’t use Paxlovid to ensure a mild case because they won’t then develop sufficiently robust immunity. I can’t imagine the math possibly working out there, even if the argument is fundamentally sound, and this is essentially gloating that a particular person got infected again while there is a new strain emerging that evades past immunity.

CDC no longer recommends universal masking in health facilities. If you call for any other gathering to have universal masking, you are saying it is a more risky setting than health care facilities, that you want to be actively more risk averse than the CDC on this, or that your rule is not about preventing Covid-19. Probably all three.

Another note of frustration with the stream of misleading Long Covid studies. Even when done right Long Covid studies have a super hard statistics problem to solve in order to be meaningful. Instead we get the same zombie claims over and over again.

Zey...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Have GWWC talk to your workplace/group this Giving Season!, published by Giving What We Can on September 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Giving What We Can is excited to talk to your workplace or community group about effective giving this Giving Season.

If you bring the people, we’ll bring the content!

We’ve found that these kinds of engagements have been successful for fundraising and engaging people in the effective giving and effective altruism communities. In fact, our Head of Marketing, Grace first heard about GWWC at a workplace talk!

You can register your interest in us running one of the following events for your group during November and December:

A talk on effective giving:

A standard talk we usually give to groups and workplaces (options for 15min, 30min, 60min, new content is being developed right now).

A workshop on high-impact philanthropy:

A new workshop format which aims to get people to reason about their approach to philanthropy and come up with their first steps.

A giving game:

We sponsor some funds, give your group some information on different effective charities and the group votes on where to donate!

[ Register your interest! ]

Our friends over at One for the World and High Impact Professionals are also running talks and fundraising events this season.

If you want some further evidence about why this could be impactful, or want to see what else is happening in this space, check out the following forum posts:

Fundraising Campaigns at Your Organization: A Reliable Path to Counterfactual Impact - High Impact Professionals

Key Factors for Success in Organizing a Fundraising Campaign at Your Company - High Impact Professionals

A Playbook for Running Corporate Fundraising Campaigns - High Impact Professionals

Would you like to host an effective giving talk in your workplace this Giving Season? - One for The World

Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.