Published on May 31, 2021 9:35 PM GMT

Meta:

I'm re-posting this from my Shortform (with minor edits) because someone indicated it might be useful to apply tags to this post.

This was originally written as quick summary of my current (potentially flawed) understanding in an email conversation.

I'm not that familiar with the human progress/progress studies communities and would be grateful if people pointed out where my impression of them seems off, as well as for takes on whether I seem correct about what the key points of agreement and disagreement are.

I think some important omissions from my summary might include:

Potential differences in underlying ethical views

More detail on why at least some 'progress studies' proponents have significantly lower estimates for existential risk this century, and potential empirical differences regarding how to best mitigate existential risk.

Another caveat is that both the progress studies and the longtermist EA communities are sufficiently large that there will be significant diversity of views within these communities - which my summary sweeps under the rug.

[See also this reply from Tony from the 'progress studies' community .]

Here's a quick summary of my understanding of the 'longtermist EA' and 'progress studies' perspectives, in a somewhat cartoonish way to gesture at points of agreement and disagreement.

EA and progress studies mostly agree about the past. In particular, they agree that the Industrial Revolution was a really big deal for human well-being, and that this is often overlooked/undervalued. E.g., here's a blog post by someone somewhat influential in EA:

Looking to the future, the progress studies community is most worried about the Great Stagnation. They are nervous that science seems to be slowing down, that ideas are getting harder to find, and that economic growth may soon be over. Industrial-Revolution-level progress was by far the best thing that ever happened to humanity, but we're at risk of losing it. That seems really bad. We need a new science of progress to understand how to keep it going. Probably this will eventually require a number of technological and institutional innovations since our current academic and economic systems are what's led us into the current slowdown.

If we were making a list of the most globally consequential developments from the past, EAs would in addition to the Industrial Revolution point to the Manhattan Project and the hydrogen bomb: the point in time when humanity first developed the means to destroy itself. (They might also think of factory farming as an example for how progress might be great for some but horrible for others, at least on some moral views.) So while they agree that the world has been getting a lot better thanks to progress, they're also concerned that progress exposes us to new nuclear-bomb-style risks. Regarding the future, they're most worried about existential risk - the prospect of permanently forfeiting our potential of a future that's much better than the status quo. Permanent stagnation would be an existential risk, but EAs tend to be even more worried about catastrophes from emerging technologies such as misaligned artificial intelligence or engineered pandemics.

They might also be worried about a potential war between the US and China, or about extreme climate change. So in a sense they aren't as worried about progress stopping than they are about progress being mismanaged and having catastrophic unintended consequences. They therefore aim for 'differential progress' - accelerating those kinds of technological or societal change that would safeguard us against these catastrophic risks, and slowing down whatever would expose us to greater risk. So concretely they are into things like "AI safety" or "biosecurity" - e.g., making machine learning systems more transparent so we could tell if they were trying to deceive their users, or implementing better norms around the publication of dual-use bio researc...

Published on May 31, 2021 9:35 PM GMT

Meta:

I'm re-posting this from my Shortform (with minor edits) because someone indicated it might be useful to apply tags to this post.

This was originally written as quick summary of my current (potentially flawed) understanding in an email conversation.

I'm not that familiar with the human progress/progress studies communities and would be grateful if people pointed out where my impression of them seems off, as well as for takes on whether I seem correct about what the key points of agreement and disagreement are.

I think some important omissions from my summary might include:

Potential differences in underlying ethical views

More detail on why at least some 'progress studies' proponents have significantly lower estimates for existential risk this century, and potential empirical differences regarding how to best mitigate existential risk.

Another caveat is that both the progress studies and the longtermist EA communities are sufficiently large that there will be significant diversity of views within these communities - which my summary sweeps under the rug.

[See also this reply from Tony from the 'progress studies' community .]

Here's a quick summary of my understanding of the 'longtermist EA' and 'progress studies' perspectives, in a somewhat cartoonish way to gesture at points of agreement and disagreement.

EA and progress studies mostly agree about the past. In particular, they agree that the Industrial Revolution was a really big deal for human well-being, and that this is often overlooked/undervalued. E.g., here's a blog post by someone somewhat influential in EA:

Looking to the future, the progress studies community is most worried about the Great Stagnation. They are nervous that science seems to be slowing down, that ideas are getting harder to find, and that economic growth may soon be over. Industrial-Revolution-level progress was by far the best thing that ever happened to humanity, but we're at risk of losing it. That seems really bad. We need a new science of progress to understand how to keep it going. Probably this will eventually require a number of technological and institutional innovations since our current academic and economic systems are what's led us into the current slowdown.

If we were making a list of the most globally consequential developments from the past, EAs would in addition to the Industrial Revolution point to the Manhattan Project and the hydrogen bomb: the point in time when humanity first developed the means to destroy itself. (They might also think of factory farming as an example for how progress might be great for some but horrible for others, at least on some moral views.) So while they agree that the world has been getting a lot better thanks to progress, they're also concerned that progress exposes us to new nuclear-bomb-style risks. Regarding the future, they're most worried about existential risk - the prospect of permanently forfeiting our potential of a future that's much better than the status quo. Permanent stagnation would be an existential risk, but EAs tend to be even more worried about catastrophes from emerging technologies such as misaligned artificial intelligence or engineered pandemics.

They might also be worried about a potential war between the US and China, or about extreme climate change. So in a sense they aren't as worried about progress stopping than they are about progress being mismanaged and having catastrophic unintended consequences. They therefore aim for 'differential progress' - accelerating those kinds of technological or societal change that would safeguard us against these catastrophic risks, and slowing down whatever would expose us to greater risk. So concretely they are into things like "AI safety" or "biosecurity" - e.g., making machine learning systems more transparent so we could tell if they were trying to deceive their users, or implementing better norms around the publication of dual-use bio researc...

Published on May 28, 2021 1:41 PM GMT

FEM’s co-founders look back on their proof of concept campaign and ahead to a pilot campaign

Family Empowerment Media (FEM) is an evidence-driven nonprofit working to improve maternal and child health. We do this by providing clear, compelling, and accurate radio-based communication that targets barriers to the uptake of family planning services. We launched in September 2020, after our co-founders participated in the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program.

We explained in an earlier post (Introducing Family Empowerment Media) post why we think family planning is a cause worth prioritizing. Enabling couples to access modern contraceptives may be one of the most cost-effective ways to avert maternal deaths, in addition to providing a host of other benefits. Often, beliefs and attitudes are the largest obstacle to couples’ accessing modern contraceptives. FEM seeks to promote more informed beliefs and attitudes through educational radio campaigns. We operate in Northern Nigeria, where radio is affordable and widely trusted. We estimate that by 2025, FEM will have helped avert approximately 600 maternal deaths, at a cost of $3,600 per death averted.

In this post, we look back on our first half year, FEM’s proof of concept phase, and ahead to our plans for the remainder of 2021, FEM’s pilot phase (Figure 1). For those interested, we close with some opportunities to support us.

Our proof of concept (Sep. 2020-Feb. 2021)

Approach and overall results

The overarching aim of the proof of concept phase was to learn, “is it feasible for us to implement our model?” We believe we passed the feasibility test. In early February, we conducted a one-week campaign that:

Broadcast ads 140 times on two radio stations

Reached up to 2-3 million listeners

Was remembered by about four out of five radio listeners, according to a small survey we conducted

To successfully implement the proof of concept, we set three key objectives for ourselves: (1) select a promising location to launch, (2) develop implementing partnerships and build a network of supportive stakeholders, and (3) execute a short campaign. We describe how we approached each objective and our results in the section that follows.

Figure 1: FEM’s proof of concept and medium-term plans

Results by objective

(1) Select a promising location to launch

We selected Kano, Nigeria as our launch point after a three-month, multi-stage analytical process (Figure 2). It was important for us to rigorously evaluate our geographic options. Much as the impact of your charitable dollar can go further in low-income countries, the cost-effectiveness of family planning interventions can vary dramatically across regions and even within countries.

We used cost-effectiveness analysis, weighted factor modeling, crucial considerations, and expert opinion to narrow down a range of potential locations. Ultimately, our country selection came down to Ghana, Nigeria, and Rwanda. We selected Nigeria largely due to its more affordable radio airtime rates, which significantly improved the projected cost-effectiveness of our work. Within Nigeria, Kano stood out across multiple prioritization methods. Key decision factors were Kano’s high rates of maternal mortality, relatively consistent supply of contraceptives, supportive Ministry of Health, and low airtime rates (~$5 for a one-minute ad on a station reaching about 2 million listeners).

Figure 2: Location prioritization methods - country and state

(2) Develop implementing partnerships and build a network of supportive stakeholders

We secured support for FEM from key stakeholders at the federal and state level, and kickstarted implementing partnerships with several organizations. We prioritized establishing partnerships because they are necessary to operate in some cases, and can improve our effectiveness in others.

We formed productive implementing relationships with:

One local implementing partner, iDevPro-Africa, which is bas...

Published on May 28, 2021 1:41 PM GMT

FEM’s co-founders look back on their proof of concept campaign and ahead to a pilot campaign

Family Empowerment Media (FEM) is an evidence-driven nonprofit working to improve maternal and child health. We do this by providing clear, compelling, and accurate radio-based communication that targets barriers to the uptake of family planning services. We launched in September 2020, after our co-founders participated in the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program.

We explained in an earlier post (Introducing Family Empowerment Media) post why we think family planning is a cause worth prioritizing. Enabling couples to access modern contraceptives may be one of the most cost-effective ways to avert maternal deaths, in addition to providing a host of other benefits. Often, beliefs and attitudes are the largest obstacle to couples’ accessing modern contraceptives. FEM seeks to promote more informed beliefs and attitudes through educational radio campaigns. We operate in Northern Nigeria, where radio is affordable and widely trusted. We estimate that by 2025, FEM will have helped avert approximately 600 maternal deaths, at a cost of $3,600 per death averted.

In this post, we look back on our first half year, FEM’s proof of concept phase, and ahead to our plans for the remainder of 2021, FEM’s pilot phase (Figure 1). For those interested, we close with some opportunities to support us.

Our proof of concept (Sep. 2020-Feb. 2021)

Approach and overall results

The overarching aim of the proof of concept phase was to learn, “is it feasible for us to implement our model?” We believe we passed the feasibility test. In early February, we conducted a one-week campaign that:

Broadcast ads 140 times on two radio stations

Reached up to 2-3 million listeners

Was remembered by about four out of five radio listeners, according to a small survey we conducted

To successfully implement the proof of concept, we set three key objectives for ourselves: (1) select a promising location to launch, (2) develop implementing partnerships and build a network of supportive stakeholders, and (3) execute a short campaign. We describe how we approached each objective and our results in the section that follows.

Figure 1: FEM’s proof of concept and medium-term plans

Results by objective

(1) Select a promising location to launch

We selected Kano, Nigeria as our launch point after a three-month, multi-stage analytical process (Figure 2). It was important for us to rigorously evaluate our geographic options. Much as the impact of your charitable dollar can go further in low-income countries, the cost-effectiveness of family planning interventions can vary dramatically across regions and even within countries.

We used cost-effectiveness analysis, weighted factor modeling, crucial considerations, and expert opinion to narrow down a range of potential locations. Ultimately, our country selection came down to Ghana, Nigeria, and Rwanda. We selected Nigeria largely due to its more affordable radio airtime rates, which significantly improved the projected cost-effectiveness of our work. Within Nigeria, Kano stood out across multiple prioritization methods. Key decision factors were Kano’s high rates of maternal mortality, relatively consistent supply of contraceptives, supportive Ministry of Health, and low airtime rates (~$5 for a one-minute ad on a station reaching about 2 million listeners).

Figure 2: Location prioritization methods - country and state

(2) Develop implementing partnerships and build a network of supportive stakeholders

We secured support for FEM from key stakeholders at the federal and state level, and kickstarted implementing partnerships with several organizations. We prioritized establishing partnerships because they are necessary to operate in some cases, and can improve our effectiveness in others.

We formed productive implementing relationships with:

One local implementing partner, iDevPro-Africa, which is bas...

Published on May 26, 2021 1:10 PM GMT

This is a retrospective on Catalyst, a one-day collaborative biosecurity summit that was held in February 2020 in the San Francisco Bay Area, written by the organizers for anyone who might run a similar event in the future.

tl;dr

It is possible for a small group of volunteers to run a high-quality conference without making it any of their full-time jobs, but give yourself 8 to 10 months to bring an event of this scale from concept to execution. (See: Timeline.)

Define the outcomes you want from your event early on. This will shape so many decisions, from contacting advisors to choosing a venue. Check out Gather for a good step-by-step guide. That said, measuring outcomes is really hard!

There is an unmet need for non-hierarchical and connection-focused conferences. We prioritized discussion, shared problem-solving, and networking between participants, and, from the feedback we received, we think these efforts contributed to more dynamic conversations and a stronger sense of community. (See: How did the event go? and Programming and Event Structure).

Experienced advisors are great. You don’t need a lot of their time to get huge benefits; a few 1-hour meetings and permission to put their names on the website was enough (see: Getting help and mentorship).

If you have funding for the conference you should try to understand the tax implications before starting to spend money. This worked out fine for us, but could easily not have (see: Budget).

Leave slack in your budget, timeline, and day-of program. We made incorrect predictions about how long things would take (especially booking speakers and finding a venue) and about how much things would cost (especially catering). (See: Timeline and Expected vs Actual Budget, which we hope will help future organizers to make better predictions).

How did the event go?

We ran Catalyst because we wanted to create a venue for discussing biosecurity in the SF Bay Area. The theme of the summit was that biotechnology is advancing quickly, many different futures seem possible, and that we must thoughtfully collaborate in order to ensure that we get a positive future.

Catalyst was attended by about 100 people representing various levels of engagement with biosecurity (from undergrads to experienced biosecurity professionals) across several different communities (effective altruists, biohackers, academics, industrial biotechnologists, and policymakers), with a slight preference for those coming from the SF Bay Area in order to facilitate continued post-Catalyst momentum. The event was funded by a grant from the Long Term Future Fund.

Outcomes from the day of the summit

We did an immediate post-event survey to gather outcomes from the event. We intended to run an additional six-month follow-up survey, but then 2020 happened.

We don’t feel totally satisfied with the robustness of our outcome data, but also aren’t sure what a solid methodology for assessing event impact would have been. Participants seem to have considered the event a good use of their time; when asked if they would attend a similar event in SF again, 30/35 respondents said “Yes”, and the remainder said “Maybe”. One experienced organizer told us that Net Promoter Score was a standard assessment: our NPS was 74, but to be honest we’re not sure if that’s a good score or not. (Edited to add: according to a comment from Ben West this is quite a good score.)

In both the survey and while talking to participants, we heard that Catalyst exceeded expectations. Many people shared enthusiastic positive feedback with organizers during the reception, and the energy in the room was very high. Participants appreciated how small the summit was, how many cool people were there, the exciting conversations, and the diverse backgrounds of attendees and speakers. Some illustrative quotes:

Beth Vitalis: “It is amazing how much happened in one day. You had us do more than talk about ideas, we actually demonstrated that ...

Published on May 26, 2021 1:10 PM GMT

This is a retrospective on Catalyst, a one-day collaborative biosecurity summit that was held in February 2020 in the San Francisco Bay Area, written by the organizers for anyone who might run a similar event in the future.

tl;dr

It is possible for a small group of volunteers to run a high-quality conference without making it any of their full-time jobs, but give yourself 8 to 10 months to bring an event of this scale from concept to execution. (See: Timeline.)

Define the outcomes you want from your event early on. This will shape so many decisions, from contacting advisors to choosing a venue. Check out Gather for a good step-by-step guide. That said, measuring outcomes is really hard!

There is an unmet need for non-hierarchical and connection-focused conferences. We prioritized discussion, shared problem-solving, and networking between participants, and, from the feedback we received, we think these efforts contributed to more dynamic conversations and a stronger sense of community. (See: How did the event go? and Programming and Event Structure).

Experienced advisors are great. You don’t need a lot of their time to get huge benefits; a few 1-hour meetings and permission to put their names on the website was enough (see: Getting help and mentorship).

If you have funding for the conference you should try to understand the tax implications before starting to spend money. This worked out fine for us, but could easily not have (see: Budget).

Leave slack in your budget, timeline, and day-of program. We made incorrect predictions about how long things would take (especially booking speakers and finding a venue) and about how much things would cost (especially catering). (See: Timeline and Expected vs Actual Budget, which we hope will help future organizers to make better predictions).

How did the event go?

We ran Catalyst because we wanted to create a venue for discussing biosecurity in the SF Bay Area. The theme of the summit was that biotechnology is advancing quickly, many different futures seem possible, and that we must thoughtfully collaborate in order to ensure that we get a positive future.

Catalyst was attended by about 100 people representing various levels of engagement with biosecurity (from undergrads to experienced biosecurity professionals) across several different communities (effective altruists, biohackers, academics, industrial biotechnologists, and policymakers), with a slight preference for those coming from the SF Bay Area in order to facilitate continued post-Catalyst momentum. The event was funded by a grant from the Long Term Future Fund.

Outcomes from the day of the summit

We did an immediate post-event survey to gather outcomes from the event. We intended to run an additional six-month follow-up survey, but then 2020 happened.

We don’t feel totally satisfied with the robustness of our outcome data, but also aren’t sure what a solid methodology for assessing event impact would have been. Participants seem to have considered the event a good use of their time; when asked if they would attend a similar event in SF again, 30/35 respondents said “Yes”, and the remainder said “Maybe”. One experienced organizer told us that Net Promoter Score was a standard assessment: our NPS was 74, but to be honest we’re not sure if that’s a good score or not. (Edited to add: according to a comment from Ben West this is quite a good score.)

In both the survey and while talking to participants, we heard that Catalyst exceeded expectations. Many people shared enthusiastic positive feedback with organizers during the reception, and the energy in the room was very high. Participants appreciated how small the summit was, how many cool people were there, the exciting conversations, and the diverse backgrounds of attendees and speakers. Some illustrative quotes:

Beth Vitalis: “It is amazing how much happened in one day. You had us do more than talk about ideas, we actually demonstrated that ...