Podcasts about does ea

Rob Wiblin speaks with FiveThirtyEight election forecaster and author Nate Silver about his new book: On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything.Links to learn more, highlights, video, and full transcript.On the Edge explores a cultural grouping Nate dubs “the River” — made up of people who are analytical, competitive, quantitatively minded, risk-taking, and willing to be contrarian. It's a tendency he considers himself a part of, and the River has been doing well for itself in recent decades — gaining cultural influence through success in finance, technology, gambling, philanthropy, and politics, among other pursuits.But on Nate's telling, it's a group particularly vulnerable to oversimplification and hubris. Where Riverians' ability to calculate the “expected value” of actions isn't as good as they believe, their poorly calculated bets can leave a trail of destruction — aptly demonstrated by Nate's discussion of the extended time he spent with FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried before and after his downfall.Given this show's focus on the world's most pressing problems and how to solve them, we narrow in on Nate's discussion of effective altruism (EA), which has been little covered elsewhere. Nate met many leaders and members of the EA community in researching the book and has watched its evolution online for many years.Effective altruism is the River style of doing good, because of its willingness to buck both fashion and common sense — making its giving decisions based on mathematical calculations and analytical arguments with the goal of maximising an outcome.Nate sees a lot to admire in this, but the book paints a mixed picture in which effective altruism is arguably too trusting, too utilitarian, too selfless, and too reckless at some times, while too image-conscious at others.But while everything has arguable weaknesses, could Nate actually do any better in practice? We ask him:How would Nate spend $10 billion differently than today's philanthropists influenced by EA?Is anyone else competitive with EA in terms of impact per dollar?Does he have any big disagreements with 80,000 Hours' advice on how to have impact?Is EA too big a tent to function?What global problems could EA be ignoring?Should EA be more willing to court controversy?Does EA's niceness leave it vulnerable to exploitation?What moral philosophy would he have modelled EA on?Rob and Nate also talk about:Nate's theory of Sam Bankman-Fried's psychology.Whether we had to “raise or fold” on COVID.Whether Sam Altman and Sam Bankman-Fried are structurally similar cases or not.“Winners' tilt.”Whether it's selfish to slow down AI progress.The ridiculous 13 Keys to the White House.Whether prediction markets are now overrated.Whether venture capitalists talk a big talk about risk while pushing all the risk off onto the entrepreneurs they fund.And plenty more.Chapters:Cold open (00:00:00)Rob's intro (00:01:03)The interview begins (00:03:08)Sam Bankman-Fried and trust in the effective altruism community (00:04:09)Expected value (00:19:06)Similarities and differences between Sam Altman and SBF (00:24:45)How would Nate do EA differently? (00:31:54)Reservations about utilitarianism (00:44:37)Game theory equilibrium (00:48:51)Differences between EA culture and rationalist culture (00:52:55)What would Nate do with $10 billion to donate? (00:57:07)COVID strategies and tradeoffs (01:06:52)Is it selfish to slow down AI progress? (01:10:02)Democratic legitimacy of AI progress (01:18:33)Dubious election forecasting (01:22:40)Assessing how reliable election forecasting models are (01:29:58)Are prediction markets overrated? (01:41:01)Venture capitalists and risk (01:48:48)Producer and editor: Keiran HarrisAudio engineering by Ben Cordell, Milo McGuire, Simon Monsour, and Dominic ArmstrongVideo engineering: Simon MonsourTranscriptions: Katy Moore

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: Does EA bring out the best in me?, published by Lorenzo Buonanno on August 28, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I really liked the framing in the linked post. Some relevant quotes: When I stay with my parents I regress back to being a teenager. I become irritable, messy and spend most of my time eating cheese toasties and watching The Simpsons. There's something about this social environment which brings out qualities in me that I don't like, and behaviours which I don't want [...] Another example - there's a friend of mine who is quite a curious, laid-back type. And often when I'm with said friend, I somehow magically become more curious and laid-back. In this case, the social environment is bringing out qualities in me that I do like. There are [...] things which EA brings out in me which I don't like. I've spoken to a bunch of people that are doing something like 'trying to figure out their relationship with EA'. And often it seems like people end up trying to do something like 'work out whether EA is good or bad'. This is a hard question to answer. I think an easier one, and a more action-relevant one is 'Does EA bring out the best in you?' or even 'What does EA bring out of you?'. An overall theme here is that people are different depending on the social environment that they are in. This will be more true of some people than others. Some people will change a lot, like a chameleon, and other people will change only a little, like a cow, or a. wardrobe, or whatever the opposite of a chameleon is. I found this a useful mindset I hadn't thought of, even if it seems obvious in hindsight. Many posts and books mention the value of engaging with the effective altruism movement to prevent value drift. But I had never reflected on what directions different parts of the movement are making me drift towards, or are preventing me from drifting to. I can't trace back where I found it, it somehow made its way into my open tabs for this evening. Thank you to whoever shared it. 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: Does EA understand how to apologize for things?, published by titotal on January 15, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. In response to the drama over Bostroms apology for an old email, the original email has been universally condemned from all sides. But I've also seen some confusion over why people dislike the apology itself. After all, nothing in the apology was technically inaccurate, right? What part of it do we disagree with? Well, I object to it because it was an apology. And when you grade an apology, you don't grade it on the factual accuracy of the scientific claims contained within, you grade it on how good it is at being an apology. And to be frank, this was probably one of the worst apologies I have ever seen in my life, although it has since been topped by Tegmark's awful non-apology for the far right newspaper affair. Okay, let's go over the rules for an apology to be genuine and sincere. I'll take them from here. Acknowledge the offense. Explain what happened. Express remorse. Offer to make amends. Notably missing from this list is step 5: Go off on an unrelated tangent about eugenics. Imagine if I called someone's mother overweight in a vulgar manner. When they get upset, I compose a long apology email where I apologize for the language, but then note that I believe it is factually true their mother has a BMI substantially above average, as does their sister, father, and wife. Whether or not those claims are factually true doesn't actually matter, because bringing them up at all is unnecessary and further upsets the person I just hurt. In Bostroms email of 9 paragraphs, he spends 2 talking about the historical context of the email, 1 talking about why he decided to release it, 1 actually apologizing, and the remaining 5 paragraphs giving an overview of his current views on race, intelligence, genetics, and eugenics. What this betrays is an extreme lack of empathy for the people he is meant to be apologizing to. Imagine if he was reading this apology out loud to the average black person, and think about how uncomfortable they would feel by the time he got to part discussing his papers about the ethics of genetic enhancement. Bostroms original racist email did not mention racial genetic differences or eugenics. They should not have been brought up in the apology either. As a direct result of him bringing the subject up, this forum and others throughout the internet have been filled with race science debate, an outcome that I believe is very harmful. Discussions of racial differences are divisive, bad PR, probably result in the spread of harmful beliefs, and are completely irrelevant to top EA causes. If Bostrom didn't anticipate that this outcome would result from bringing the subject up, then he was being hopelessly naive. On the other hand, Bostroms apology looks absolutely saintly next to the FLI's/Max Tegmarks non-apology for the initial approval of grant money to a far-right newspaper (the funding offer was later rescinded). At no point does he offer any understanding at all as to why people might be concerned about approving, even temporarily, funding for a far-right newspaper that promotes holocaust denial, covid vaccine conspiracy theories, and defending "ethnic rights". I don't even know what to say about this statement. The FLI has managed to fail at point 1 of an apology: understanding that they did something wrong. I hope they manage to release a real apology soon, and when they do, maybe they can learn some lessons from previous failures. 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: FTX FAQ, published by Hamish Doodles on November 13, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. What is this? There's a lot of information flying around at the moment, and I'm going to try and organise it into an FAQ. I expect I have made a lot of mistakes, so please don't assume any specific claim here is true. This is definitely not legal or financial advice or anything like that. Please let me know if anything is wrong/unclear/misleading. Please suggest quesetions and/or answers in the comments. Update: actually, I would advise against wading into the comments. I'm erring on the side of brevity, so if you need more information follow the links. What is FTX? FTX is a Cryptocurrency Derivatives Exchange. It is now bankrupt. Who is Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF)? The founder of FTX. He was recently a billionaire and the richest person under 30. How is FTX connected to effective altruism? In the last couple of years, effective altruism received millions of dollars of funding from SBF and FTX via the Future Fund. SBF was following a strategy of "make tons of money to give it to charity." This is called "earning to give", and it's an idea that was spread by EA in early-to-mid 2010s. SBF was definitely encouraged onto his current path by engaging with EA. SBF was something of a "golden boy" to EA. For example, this. How did FTX go bankrupt? FTX gambled with user deposits rather than keeping them in reserve. Binance, a competitor, triggered a run on the bank where depositors attempted to get their money out. It looked like Binance was going to acquire FTX at one point, but they pulled out after due diligence. Now FTX and SBF are bunkrupt, and SBF will likely be convicted of felony. Source How bad is this? "It is therefore very likely to lead to the loss of deposits which will hurt the lives of 10,000s of people eg here" SBF will likely be convicted of felony. Source Did SBF definitely do something illegal and/or immoral? The vibe I'm reading is "very likely, but not yet certain." Does EA still have funding? Yes. Before FTX there was Open Philanthropy (OP), which is mostly funded by Dustin Muskovitz and Cari Tuna. None of this is connected to FTX, and OP's funding is unaffected. Is Open Philanthropy funding impacted? Global health and wellbeing funding will continue as normal. Because the total pool of funding to longtermism has shrunk, Open Philanthropy will have to raise the bar on longtermist grant making. Thus, Open Philanthropy is "pausing most new longtermist funding commitments" (longtermism includes AI, Biosecurity, and Community Growth) for a couple of months to recalibrate. Source If you got money from FTX, do you have to give it back? It's possible, but we don't know. What if you've already spent money from FTX? It's still possible that you may have to give it back. Again, we don't know. If you got money from FTX, should you give it back? You probably shouldn't, at least for the moment. If you gave the money back, there's the possibility that because it wasn't done through the proper legal channels you end up having to give the money back again. If you got money from FTX, should you spend it? Probably not. At least for the next few days. You may have to give it back. I feel terrible about having FTX money. Reading this may help. What if I'm still expecting FTX money? The board of the FTX future fund has all resigned, but "grantees may email grantee-reachout@googlegroups.com." How can I get support/help? "Here's the best place to reach us if you'd like to talk. I know a form isn't the warmest, but a real person will get back to you soon." (source) Some mental health advice here. How are people reacting? Will MacAskill: "If there was deception and misuse of funds, I am outraged, and I don't know which emotion is stronger: my utter rage at Sam (and others?) for causing such ha...

We are back with another special episode with special guest Chelsea supporter Clive. We discuss his journey and love for soccer. His Jamaican national team   Chelsea Rebuild Review (1) New Philosophy - Young, skilled, hungry, and securing transfers.  (2) Timo Werner, Hakim Ziyech, and Kai Havertz next?  (3) Goalkeeper swap rumors Barcelona to Chelsea Marc-Andre Ter Stegen for Kepa.   Manchester United Rebuild Review (1) Addition by subtraction - Losing Pogba to secure Sancho and Jack Grealish?  Is it worth it? (2) To many strikers - Mason Greenwood for sale?  ManU owners the Glazers are thirsty for cash in the pandemic. (3) Serie A is calling    MLS Expansion Teams Delayed -  Will it stop the momentum MLS expansion has had?  Will it impact financial stability?  Expansion Changes - Charlotte 2022, St. Louis and Sacramento 2023  We know how fragile the sports market can be in St. Louis.   If Portland style protest/rots comes to the Federal building near Union Station will White St.Louis say fuck MLS and these Negros!   Trash Manchester United just because.   Review last weeks picks Fanmail   Fifa 21 - Will you buy it?  Are you waiting on the next gen systems to release or no?  Does EA drop the game twice because we are sheep and will pay for it?   Subscribe to the show on any podcast catcher or streaming service Leave us a comment on I-TUNES and let us know what you think about the show!! Follow us on twitter @straightolc, IG at @SOLCNetwork email us at straightolc@gmail.com Hit the Voicemail at 641-715-3900 Ext. 769558

In episode 54, we take a look at Effective Altruism. Why has this approach to philanthropy based on utilitarian philosophy gained so many admirers - and so many critics - over the last few years? Including:   -What is Effective Altruism (EA)? -How is it informing new approaches to philanthropy? -Why are so many tech philanthropists EA advocates? -Could the emergence of data-driven, AI approaches to philanthropy put EA in the driving seat? -What is the historical lineage of Utilitarian thinking? -What role did religion play in giving birth to the idea that philanthropy needs to be effective? -How did the Charity Organization Society and the Scientific Philanthropy movements take this idea forward, and are they the intellectual forebears of EA? -What, if anything, is genuinely new about EA? -Is EA merely theoretical because it doesn't reflect how philanthropy actually works or what motivates donors? -Does the focus on outcomes come at the expense of other considerations such as justice, democracy or individual agency? -Do EA metrics favour short-term, tangible interventions over longer-term campaigns for social change? -Does EA dictate working within existing structures and systems, rather than driving the reforms to those structures and systems that many believe are needed for real change? -Does EA lead to a bias against local giving in favour of giving overseas? And can this have unintended consequences in terms of how other perceive us? -Existential threats and "Pascal's Mugging"   Related Content EA organisations: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/ https://80000hours.org/ The History of Utilitarianism & Rationality in Philanthropy “The History of Utilitarianism”, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Peter Singer’s seminal paper “Famine, Affluence & Morality” Schneewind, J.B. (1996) “Philosophical Ideas of Charity: Some Historical Reflections” in Schneewind (ed) Giving: Western Ideas of Philanthropy Roberts, M.J.D. (1998) “Head vs Heart: Voluntary Associations and Charity Organization in England, c. 1700-1850” in Cunningham & Innes (eds) Charity, Philanthropy and Reform: From the 1690s to 1850 William Rathbone’s memoir Social Duties Simey, M (1992) Charity Rediscovered: A Study of Philanthropic Effort in 19th Century Liverpool   Criticism of Effective Altruism Schambra, W. (2014) “The Emerging Threat of Effective Altruism” in Breeze & Moody (eds) The Philanthropy Reader Berger & Penna (2013) “The Elitist Philanthropy of So-Called Effective Altruism” in Stanford Social Innovation Review Ashford, E. (2018) “Severe Poverty as an Unjust Emergency” in Woodruff (ed) The Ethics of Giving Acemoglu, D. (2015) “The Logic of Effective Altruism”, Boston Review Dylan Matthews 2015 Vox article “I spent a weekend at Google talking with nerds about charity. I came away … worried.” Law, Campbell & Gaesser (2019). Biased Benevolence: The Morality of Effective Altruism, journal pre-print on PsyArXiv Nick Bostrom’s paper on “Pascal’s Mugging” The chapter on “Criticisms of philanthropy” from my book, which contains a subsection on “telescopic philanthropy”

Join us for our second episode as we look at:- Are EA the bad guys?- Does EA originals redeem them?- Developers telling gamers to pirate their game?And much more.Want to say hello find us at: Twitter: @Official_GNWFacebook: Gaming News WeeklyEmail: Officialgamingnewsweekly@gmail.com 

If R5-D4 is in The Mandalorian what might that mean? Does EA know how to make video games? After we tackle these questions we get into pretty heavy Episode IX plot rumors that have us both excited.

This episode walks you through all the various and sundry ways to apply to college… …and whether applying early makes sense for you! Topics include: Does EA help you get money? How much does ED really help you get into college, anyway? Does ED hurt your chances of getting money? More! Thanks for…