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: High Impact Medicine, 6 months later - Update & Key Lessons, published by Akhil on May 28, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

With thanks to Jacob Arbeid, George Rosenfeld, Jacob Smith, Thomas Cohen, Jake Mendel (Hi-Med Oxford), Pauline Scheuber (Hi-Med Germany), Erik Jentzen (Hi-Med Germany) and Rahul Shah (Hi-Med Cambridge) for comments.

6 months ago, we launched High Impact Medicine. In this post, we share an update on our progress and the lessons we learnt in running a community building organisation focussed on a particular profession. We hope that this might be relevant to others interested in community building, particularly in professional and workplace groups.

High Impact Medicine is a group whose goals are to bring together medics who want to have a wide reaching positive impact, alongside and learning from clinical practice, and explore the opportunities for them to do so. We have 3 main paths to impact:

Outreach & community building: our chapters run talks and socials for medics of all grades, from students to doctors working in hospitals or outside of clinical medicine

Knowledge building around impact in medicine: we run a fellowship, a podcast and talks. We are planning to run follow up ‘senior’ fellowships as well.

Career advice: we help members explore how they can have a large impact alongside, and learning from clinical medicine

We set out to foster local, engaged communities of medical students and doctors including those not familiar with EA, focussing on outreach to new interested medics, working alongside EA Medicine who facilitate a global network of medics who are already EA aligned.

Since launching:

High Impact Medicine has grown to approximately 100-120 members, at least 60 of whom are moderately to highly engaged (definition). Our rough split has been 70% medical students and 30% doctors.

Our inaugural fellowship attracted 7 cohorts with a total of 54 fellows

We have run many talks and socials in Cambridge, Oxford and London with an average of 15 attendees per event, with speakers including Professor Sir Andrew Pollard

We have launched our Podcast

Several (≥4) members have taken the GWWC pledge, and ≥3 others have made changes in their career direction as a result of being part of the organisation.

We have expanded significantly beyond our initial base in the UK:

We recently launched High-Impact Medicine Germany

We are running a cohort of our fellowship for medical students in Tehran, Iran

We have members in the USA, Australia and Singapore.

Our key lessons

1. Having an open framing allows for effective outreach

We chose to frame Hi-Med openly - a chance for medics to find out about ways to ‘have a widespread positive impact’ and explore areas such as ‘global health, health policy, biosecurity and mental health’. Our objective was to try and get a lot of people interested in considering their own personal impact and how they could do a lot of good alongside and learning from their medical backgrounds. This was reflected in the fact that a significant number (approximately 25 out of 50) of the fellowship participants were entirely new to EA. Many of the ideas we discussed in the fellowship stem from the Effective Altruism community (e.g. ITN framework, EA-aligned cause areas) but we also drew on material from the wider scientific community in our fellowship, talks and podcast.

Our approach was intended to provide medics with information to make their own decisions and enable an honest approach. Hearing ideas without them being exclusively attached to a wider philosophy and in more neutral (rather than persuasive) fashion may help avoid putting people off and allows individuals the freedom to pick aspects they found more meaningful to explore. This helps encourage a ‘truth seeking’ approach that focuses on ‘learning useful tools and asking...

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: Deconfusing Landauer's Principle, published by euanmclean on May 27, 2022 on LessWrong.

I’m going to assume knowledge of Shannon entropy and the basics of information theory. I won’t assume any physics knowledge (but you’ll probably find it easier if you know physics).

Thanks to Francis Priestland, Anson Ho, Nico Macé, Dan Hatton and Kenneth Freeman for their comments.

This was the result of me being nerd-sniped by a friend who wanted to talk to me about the connection between cognition and thermodynamics. I thought “yea, I know thermodynamics, it should take me a nice afternoon or two of straightening things out in my head to come up with something interesting to say”. How naive of me. In the process, I fell down a number of holes of confusion. I realised that properly understanding Landauer’s principle would be a good waypoint on my quest. This is the result of my clearing up these confusions.

Landauer’s principle is often summarised as something like:

1 bit of memory in a register is erased, destroying 1 bit of information. Because information is entropy(?!), this means the memory register loses 1 bit of entropy. Total entropy always increases over time, so the environment must increase its entropy by at least 1 bit to compensate, resulting in a corresponding minimum amount of heat dissipation, along with a minimum energy requirement for deleting the bit.

But whoa hey hold your horses there; what does entropy really mean here? Is the Shannon entropy of a logic gate really connected to its thermodynamic entropy, and if so, in what way? I always found Landauer’s principle a bit mysterious because it seems, at first glance, to connect something we tend to consider as a subjective construct (a probability distribution) with a measurable physical outcome (the release of heat). And I’m clearly not alone, there have been a bunch of people coming out and saying that the principle is widely misunderstood or even that the principle itself is wrong (but don’t panic, it’s been pretty well experimentally verified). So fleshing out what’s really going on here was helpful for me to understand more intuitively what computation (and by extension cognition maybe?) means from a physics point of view. The central insight is that, as Landauer put it; “information is physical”.

The relationship between Shannon entropy and thermodynamic entropy

Thermodynamic entropy is a pretty objective property of some physical system. It’s related to other macroscopic properties like internal energy, temperature and pressure. Here is how it’s defined. When some amount of energy in the form of heat, Q, is transferred into a system at temperature T, this causes an increase in the thermodynamic entropy of the system S of ΔS=Q/T. When something is hot I can feel its heat, so I’m convinced that heat is a real thing, and by extension thermodynamic entropy is also a real thing.

Shannon entropy is a property of a probability distribution p(x) over some set of possible values ΓX for the random variable X, defined as H(X)=−∑x∈ΓXp(x)log2p(x). It tells us how much information we’re missing about X. In other words, how much information (in bits) we gain by finding out the exact value of X given some prior beliefs described by p(x).

Are they related? Yes. In thermodynamic equilibrium at least. In equilibrium, thermodynamic entropy is a special case of Shannon entropy: the Shannon entropy of a particular distribution over possible states of a physical system.

In equilibrium, the thermodynamic entropy of a system is the Shannon entropy of a probability distribution over possible microstates of the system. A microstate x is a total specification of everything you could ever know about that system. Everything you could hope to measure about it, even in principle, down to the position, momentum, charge etc. of each par...

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: On funding, trust relationships, and scaling our community [PalmCone memo], published by Habryka on May 28, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

The following is a memo I wrote for the private "PalmCone" conference that Lightcone ran a few months ago that involved many people active in AI Alignment and EA community building (that I was sadly unable to attend myself because of visa reasons). I previously posted it in two comments on a previous post, but people kept asking me for a more easily linkable version, so here it is as a top-level post.

Epistemic status: Vague models that try to point at something. Many details are likely wrong. If I had more time I would say more accurate things, but I wanted to get this out before you all get started with the retreat.

I think it it was Marc Andreessen who first hypothesized that startups usually go through two very different phases:

Pre Product-market fit: At this stage, you have some inkling of an idea, or some broad domain that seems promising, but you don't yet really have anything that solves a really crucial problem. This period is characterized by small teams working on their inside-view, and a shared, tentative, malleable vision that is often hard to explain to outsiders.

Post Product-market fit: At some point you find a product that works for people. The transition here can take a while, but by the end of it, you have customers and users banging on your door relentlessly to get more of what you have. This is the time of scaling. You don't need to hold a tentative vision anymore, and your value proposition is clear to both you and your customers. Now is the time to hire people and scale up and make sure that you don't let the product-market fit you've discovered go to waste.

I think it was Paul Graham or someone else close to YC (or maybe Ray Dalio) who said something like the following (NOT A QUOTE, since I currently can't find the direct source):

The early stages of an organization are characterized by building trust. If your company is successful, and reaches product-market fit, these early founders and employees usually go on to lead whole departments. Use these early years to build trust and stay in sync, because when you are a thousand-person company, you won't have the time for long 10-hour conversations when you hang out in the evening.

As you scale, you spend down that trust that you built in the early days. As you succeed, it's hard to know who is here because they really believe in your vision, and who just wants to make sure they get a big enough cut of the pie. That early trust is what keeps you agile and capable, and frequently as we see founders leave an organization, and with that those crucial trust relationships, we see the organization ossify, internal tensions increase, and the ability to effectively correspond to crises and changing environments get worse.

It's hard to say how well this model actually applies to startups or young organizations (it matches some of my observations, though definitely far from perfectly), and even more dubious how well it applies to systems like our community, but my current model is that it captures something pretty important.

I think whether we want it or not, I think we are now likely in the post-product-market fit part of the lifecycle of our community, at least when it comes to building trust relationships and onboarding new people. I think we have become high-profile enough, and have enough visible resources (especially with FTX's latest funding announcements), and have gotten involved in enough high-stakes politics, that if someone shows up next year at EA Global, you can no longer confidently know whether they are there because they have a deeply shared vision of the future with you, or because they want to get a big share of the pie that seems to be up for t...

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: Future Matters: May 2022, published by Pablo on May 28, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

In the littered field of discredited self-congratulatory chauvinisms, there is only one that seems to hold up, one sense in which we are special: Due to our own actions or inactions, and the misuse of our technology, we live at an extraordinary moment, for the Earth at least—the first time that a species has become able to wipe itself out. But this is also, we may note, the first time that a species has become able to journey to the planets and the stars. The two times, brought about by the same technology, coincide—a few centuries in the history of a 4.5-billion-year-old planet. If you were somehow dropped down on the Earth randomly at any moment in the past (or future), the chance of arriving at this critical moment would be less than 1 in 10 million. Our leverage on the future is high just now.

Carl Sagan

Future Matters is a newsletter about longtermism. Each month we collect and summarize longtermism-relevant research, share news from the longtermism community, and feature a conversation with a prominent longtermist. You can also subscribe on Substack, listen on your favorite podcast platform and follow on Twitter.

Research

Stefan Schubert's Against cluelessness notes that, while it is generally very hard to predictably affect the long-term future, this fails to constitute a decisive objection to longtermism. Amidst this "sea of cluelessness", we find "pockets of predictability", or opportunities for making long-lasting changes that are positive in expectation. Schubert describes two types of intervention that escape these worries. First, attempts to reduce short-term risks to our long-term potential: such risks are tractable because they are located in the near-term, but still have longtermist significance. Threats of this type include risks of human extinction as well as risks of value lock-in. Second, efforts to build longtermist capacity, such as increasing the size of the longtermism community or its financial resources, or improving the reputation or knowledge of that community.

This capacity can be built over a period of decades or centuries, until good enough opportunities to robustly improve the long-term future emerge.

Joseph Carlsmith's presentation on existential risk from power-seeking AI (video and transcript) summarizes the author's comprehensive report published in April last year. Carlsmith focuses specifically on AI systems defined by the possession of three key properties: advanced capability, agentic planning, and strategic awareness (APS, for short), and then relies on this construct to develop an explicit argument for the conclusion that AI poses an existential risk to humanity:

It will become possible to develop APS systems.

There will be strong incentives to deploy APS systems.

It will be much harder to build aligned than misaligned APS systems.

Misaligned APS systems, if deployed, will fail in high-impact ways.

A failure from a misaligned APS system will permanently disempower humanity.

A disempowerment of humanity will constitute an existential catastrophe.

Summarizing all the considerations Carlsmith adduces for each of the premises in the argument is beyond the scope of this newsletter, but we encourage the reader to check out the author's commendably lucid talk for the relevant details.

Lizka Vaintrob's Against "longtermist" as an identity describes two possible harms of self-identifying as a "longtermist". The first is that the label includes factual claims, e.g. that trying to improve the long-term is generally more cost-effective than improving the world in other ways, which makes it harder to update in response to evidence against these claims. The second is that the label causes people to uncritically accept wholesale the cluster of vie...

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: Will there be an EA answer to the predictable famines later this year?, published by Sebastian Schwiecker on May 28, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

I have read several articles about looming famines later this year or next year as a consequence of the war in Ukraine (less wheat and less fertilizer exports) and possible droughts. I and other people raising money for EA-aligned charities (I'm running Effektiv Spenden) will be asked where to donate to fight this catastrophe. Maybe the "right" answer will still be that bednets, but most people won't follow that advise (I'm talking about 99.9% of people from outside of the EA-community). Any ideas on how to prepare an answer with a higher potential of engaging people with effective giving?

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: What is Going On With CFAR?, published by niplav on May 28, 2022 on LessWrong.

Whispers have been going around on the internet. People have been talking, using words like "defunct" or "inactive" (not yet "dead").

The last update to the website was December 2020 (the copyright on the website states "© Copyright 2011-2021 Center for Applied Rationality. All rights reserved."), the last large-scale public communication was end of 2019 (that I know of).

If CFAR is now "defunct", it might be useful for the rest of the world to know about that, because the problem of making humans and groups more rational hasn't disappeared, and some people might want to pick up the challenge (and perhaps talk to people who were involved in it to rescue some of the conclusions and insights).

Additionally, it would be interesting to hear why the endeavour was abandoned in the end, to avoid going on wild goose-chases oneself (or, in the very boring case, to discover that they ran out of funding (though that appears unlikely to me)).

If CFAR isn't "defunct", I can see a few possibilities:

It's working on some super-secret projects, perhaps in conjunction with MIRI (which sounds reasonable enough, but there's still value left on the table with distributing rationality training and raising the civilizational sanity)

They are going about their regular business, but the social network they operate in is large enough that they don't need to advertise on their website (I think this is unlikely, it contradicts most of the evidence in the comments linked above)

So, what is going on?

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: Monthly Overload of EA - June 2022, published by DavidNash on May 27, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

Link post for 2022 June Effective Altruism Updates

Top Links

Will MacAskill on EA and the current funding situation

Theo Hawking - 'Bad Omens in Current Community Building'

Nick Beckstead - clarifications on the Future Fund's approach to grantmaking

Haydn Belfield -'Cautionary Lessons from the Manhattan Project and the ‘Missile Gap’; Beware Assuming You’re in an AI Race'

Linch - 'Some unfun lessons I learned as a junior grantmaker'

Luke Freeman - '"Big tent" effective altruism is very important (particularly right now)'

Julia Wise - 'Messy personal stuff that affected my cause prioritization (or: how I started to care about AI safety)'

New Organisations, Projects & Prizes

Open Philanthropy have prizes for new cause area suggestions, submit suggestions by August 4th

A post introducing Asterisk, a new quarterly journal of ideas from in and around Effective Altruism

An EA Unjournal has been started. They aim to organize and fund public journal-independent feedback, rating, and evaluation of hosted papers and dynamically-presented research projects

Nuño Sempere has started the EA Forum Lowdown, a tabloid version of the EA Forum digest

The EA Forum has a new feature allowing you to find other people interested in EA near you

Charity Entrepreneurship have launched career coaching for impact-focused entrepreneurs

EA Engineers has been set up as a discord for people interested in EA and non-software engineering

Non-trivial Pursuits has been set up to help teenagers find fulfilling, impactful careers

The Nucleic Acid Observatory project for early detection of catastrophic biothreats has been launched

Critiques/Suggested Improvements

Ines on how EA can sound less weird

CEA is looking for anonymous feedback

Hal Triedman with a critique of effective altruism

Jeff Kaufman on 'Increasing Demandingness in EA'

Luke Freeman on being ambitious and celebrating failures

Arjun Panickssery on impressions of 'Big EA' from students

Justis with a post on status as a Giving What We Can Pledger

Marius Hobbhahn with 'EA needs to understand its “failures” better'

Marisa with 'The EA movement’s values are drifting. You’re allowed to stay put.'

Caroline Ellison on how discussion about increased spending in EA and its potential negative consequences conflates two separate questions

James Lin and Jennifer Zhu with 'EA culture is special; we should proceed with intentionality'

Luke Chambers with 'Why EA’s Talent Bottleneck is a Barrier of its own Making'

Ben Kuhn suggesting that 'The biggest risk of free-spending EA is not optics or motivated cognition, but grift'

Étienne Fortier-Dubois with 'Guided by the Beauty of One’s Philosophies: Why Aesthetics Matter'

Miscellaneous Meta EA

80,000 Hours podcast with Will MacAskill on balancing frugality with ambition, whether you need longtermism, and mental health under pressure

EA Funds donation platform is moving to Giving What We Can

David Moss and Jamie Elsey ran a survey to find out how many people have heard of effective altruism

Matthew Yglesias on understanding effective altruism's move into politics

Results from the Decade Review on the EA Forum

Lucius Caviola, Erin Morrissey, Joshua Lewis have run a survey that found most students who would agree with EA ideas haven't heard of EA yet

Kat Woods and Amber Dawn on how to have passive impact

Owen Cotton-Barratt on deferring

Justis looking at how complicated it is to work out impact

Julia Wise with a post on what to do as EA is likely to get more attention over time

Updates from the CEA community health team

Careers

Vaidehi Agarwalla on the availability bias in job hunting

Joseph Lemien looking at how to do hiring better

Jonathan Michel with an overview of his job as an EA office manager

Tereza Flid...

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: New Water Quality x Obesity Dataset Available, published by Elizabeth on May 27, 2022 on LessWrong.

Tl;dr: I created a dataset of US counties’ water contamination and obesity levels. So far I have failed to find anything really interesting with it, but maybe you will. If you are interested you can download the dataset here. Be warned every spreadsheet program will choke on it; you definitely need to be use statistical programming.

Many of you have read Slime Mold Time Mold’s series on the hypothesis that environmental contaminants are driving weight gain. I haven’t done a deep dive on their work, but their lit review is certainly suggestive.

SMTM did some original analysis by looking at obesity levels by state, but this is pretty hopeless. They’re using average altitude by state as a proxy for water purity for the entire state, and then correlating that with the state’s % resident obesity. Water contamination does seem negatively correlated with its altitude, and its altitude is correlated with an end-user’s altitude, and that end user’s altitude is correlated with their average state altitude. but I think that’s too many steps removed with too much noise at each step. So the aggregation by state is basically meaningless, except for showing us Colorado is weird.

So I dug up a better data set, which had contamination levels for almost every water system in the country, accessible by zip code, and another one that had obesity prevalence by county. I combined these into a single spreadsheet and did some very basic statistical analysis on them to look for correlations.

Some caveats before we start:

The dataset looks reasonable to me, but I haven’t examined it exhaustively and don’t know where the holes are.

Slime Mold Time Mold’s top contender for environmental contagion is lithium. While technically present in the database, litium had five entries so I ignored it. I haven’t investigated but my guess is no one tests for lithium.

It’s rare, but some zip codes have multiple water suppliers, and the spreadsheet treats them as two separate entities that coincidentally have the same obesity prevalence.

I’ve made no attempt to back out basic confounding variables like income or age.

“% obese” is a much worse metric than average BMI, which is itself a much worse metric than % body fat.

None of those metrics would catch if a contaminant makes some people very fat while making others thin ( SMTM thinks paradoxical effects are a big deal, so this is a major gap for testing their model).

Correlation still does not equal causation.

The correlations (for contaminants with >10k entries):

ContaminantCorrelation# SamplesNitrate-0.03921430Total haloacetic acids (HAAs)0.05514666Chloroform0.04615065Barium (total)0.04017929Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)0.11721184Copper-0.00217113Dibromochloromethane0.08013856Nitrate & nitrite0.03511902Bromodichloromethane0.07914238Lead (total)-0.00613031Dichloroacetic acid-0.00310159

Of these, the only one that looks interesting is trihalomethanes, a chemical group that includes chloroform. Here’s the graph:

Visually this looks like the floor is rising much faster than the ceiling, but in a conversation on twitter SMTM suggested that’s an artifact of the biviariate distribution, it disappears if you look at log normal.

Very casual googling suggests that TTHMs are definitely bad for pregnancy in sufficient quantities, and are maybe in a complicated relationship with Type 2 diabetes, but no slam dunks.

This is about as far as I’ve had time to get. My conclusions alas are not very actionable, but maybe someone else can do something interesting with the data.

Thanks to Austin Chen for zipping the two data sets together, Daniel Filan for doing additional data processing and statistical analysis, and my Patreon patrons for supporting this research.

Thanks for list...

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: How Could AI Governance Go Wrong?, published by HaydnBelfield on May 26, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

(I gave a talk to EA Cambridge in February 2022. People have told me they found it useful as an introduction/overview so I edited the transcript, which can be found below. If you're familiar with AI governance in general, you may still be interested in the sections on 'Racing vs Dominance' and 'What is to be done?'.)

Talk Transcript

I've been to lots of talks which catch you with a catchy title and they don't actually tell you the answer until right at the end so I’m going to skip right to the end and answer it. How could AI governance go wrong?

These are the three answers that I'm gonna give: over here you've got some paper clips, in the middle you've got some very bad men, and then on the right you've got nuclear war. This is basically saying the three cases are accident, misuse and structural or systemic risks. That's the ultimate answer to the talk, but I'm gonna take a bit longer to actually get there.

I'm going to talk very quickly about my background and what CSER (the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk) is. Then I’m going to answer what is this topic called AI governance, then how could AI governance go wrong? Before finally addressing what can be done, so we're not just ending on a sad glum note but we're going out there realising there is useful stuff to be done.

My Background & CSER

This is an effective altruism talk, and I first heard about effective altruism back in 2009 in a lecture room a lot like this, where someone was talking about this new thing called Giving What We Can, where they decided to give away 10% of their income to effective charities. I thought this was really cool: you can see that's me on the right (from a little while ago and without a beard). I was really taken by these ideas of effective altruism and trying to do the most good with my time and resources.

So what did I do? I ended up working for the Labour Party for several years in Parliament. It was very interesting, I learned a lot, and as you can see from the fact that the UK has a Labour government and is still in the European Union, it went really well. Two of the people I worked for are no longer even MPs. After this sterling record of success down in Westminster – having campaigned in one general election, two leadership elections and two referendums – I moved up to Cambridge five years ago to work at CSER.

The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk: we're a research group within the University of Cambridge dedicated to the study and mitigation of risks that could lead to human extinction or civilizational collapse. We do high quality academic research, we develop strategies for how to reduce risk, and then we field-build, supporting a global community of people working on existential risk.

We were founded by these three very nice gentlemen: on the left that's Prof Huw Price, Jaan Tallinn (founding engineer of Skype and Kazaa) and Lord Martin Rees. We've now grown to about 28 people (tripled in size since I started) - there we are hanging out on the bridge having a nice chat.

A lot of our work falls into four big risk buckets:

pandemics (a few years ago I had to justify why that was in the slides, now unfortunately it's very clear to all of us)

AI, which is what we're going to be talking mainly about today

climate change and ecological damage, and then

systemic risk from all of our intersecting vulnerable systems.

Why care about existential risks?

Why should you care about this potentially small chance of the whole of humanity going extinct or civilization collapsing in some big catastrophe? One very common answer is looking at the size of all the future generations that could come if we don't mess things up. The little circle in the middle is the number of ...

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: Who's hiring? (Summer 2022), published by Lorenzo on May 27, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.

We’d like to help applicants and hiring managers coordinate, so we’ve set up two hiring threads.

So: consider sharing your information if you are hiring for positions in EA!

Please only post if you personally are part of the hiring company—no recruiting firms or job boards. Only one post per company. If it isn't a household name, please explain what your company does.

See the latest similar thread on Hacker News for example postings.

This was inspired by the talks around an EA common application, especially this comment. We thought it might be useful to replicate the "Who wants to be hired?" and "Who's hiring?" threads from the Hacker News forum.

Existing job boards

80000 hours job board (spreadsheet version)

Open job listings on this forum

EA work club

EA internships board

Impact Colabs for volunteer and collaboration opportunities (full page view)

80000 hours LinkedIn group

Animal Advocacy Careers job board (spreadsheet version)

This list of job boards

EA job postings and EA volunteering Facebook groups

EA-aligned tech jobs spreadsheet

Did we forget any? Leave a comment or send us a message and we'll add it here!

This thread is a test

We’re not sure how much it will help, or how we should improve future similar attempts. So if you have any feedback, we’d love to hear it. (Please leave it as a comment or message us.)

See also

The related thread: Who wants to be hired?

Quoted from the Hacker News thread.

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