优途加速器速器ios

iTubeGo YouTube Downloader破解版-iTubeGo YouTube下载 ...:2021-6-15 · 猜你喜欢 家庭电脑相册制作系统 V6.0 绿色版 爱博邮件搜索圣手 2.41 破解版 宏达劳务中介管理系统 1.0 注册版 星愿浏览器 v4.4/v3.4.1 绿色精简版 世界风景为壁纸 CamPaper v1.54 注册版

Thanks, that's all really interesting.

I think I largely agree, except that I think I'm on the fence about the last paragraph.

Regarding existential risk estimates, I do see value in doing research on specific questions that would make us adjust those estimates, and then adjusting them accordingly. 

I agree with what you say in this paragraph. But it seems somewhat separate to the question of how valuable it is to elicit and collate current views? 

I might think the following: "Most relevant experts are fairly confident that certain existential risks (e.g., from AI) as substantially more likely than others (e.g., from asteroids or gamma ray bursts). The vast majority of people - and a substantial portion of EAs, longtermists, policymakers, etc. - probably aren't aware of that, and might guess the difference in risk levels is less substantial, or be unable to guess which risks are most likely. (This seems analogous to the situation with large differences in charity cost-effectiveness.) So eliciting and collecting experts' views can provide a useful input into other people's prioritisation decisions.

That said, on the margin, it'll be very hard to shift the relevant experts' credences on x-risk levels by more than, for example, a factor of two. And there are often bigger differences in other factors in our decisions, plus we don't know how much weight to put on experts' specific credences. So there's not that much value in trying to further inform the relevant experts credences on x-risk levels. (Though the same work that would do that might be very valuable for other reasons, like helping to build more detailed models of how risks would occur and what the levers for intervention are.)"

Does that sound right to you? 

If I thought there was a research project that would cause most people to revise that estimate to, say, 0.1% I do think this would be super valuable.

Just to check, I assume you mean that, if you thought there was a research project that would cause most people to revise that estimate to (say) 0.1% if indeed the best estimate is (say) 0.1% (and that wouldn't cause such a revision otherwise), that'd be super valuable? 

One alternative thing you might mean: "I think the best estimate is 0.1%, and I think a research project that would cause most people to realise that would be super valuable." But I'm guessing that's not what you mean?

I'm a native English speaker, and to me "unusual causes" and "non-standard causes" feel similar in connotation, and neither strikes me as feeling deprecating. Though I can see how "unusual" could imply the cause is weird, whereas really we just want to say it's not usually discussed. "Non-standard" avoids that, but seems like an uncommon phrase.

I'm against "under-discussed", as that bakes in the judgement that this should be more discussed. I'd say the same about "Overlooked" or "Neglected". "Less discussed causes" or "Less commonly discussed causes" avoids that, but is perhaps a little long (though the former is only as long as "Under-discussed causes").

I'm a bit against "other causes", though I'm less sure why. Maybe "other" actually feels more deprecating to me, perhaps due to having been exposed to the term "The Other" in some social science courses.

My vote might be for "Less discussed causes".

I believe this only applies for certain causes, mainly global poverty. If you want to work on existential risk, movement building, or cause prioritization, basically no organizations are working on these except for EA or EA-adjacent orgs. Many non-EA orgs do cause prioritization, but they generally have a much more limited range of what causes they're willing to consider. Animal advocacy is more of a middle ground, I believe EAs make up somewhere between 10% and 50% of all factory farming focused animal advocates.

(This is just my impression, not backed up by any data.)

Table test - Markdown

Hi all! I'm Litawn. I found EA through my interest in rationality (Lesswrong, SSC). I was involved with Stanford Effective Altruism, but mostly am a serial lurker. I want to start engaging more with the community and EA in general, as I can see that there is a lot to learn.

My interests are usually in fundamental questions as well as pragmatic ones. I like thinking about big questions like the far future, the fate of the universe, nature of life, etc. I'm inherently drawn to these sorts of things.

I also care about improving human coordination and raising the sanity water line. I want more people to feel like they have the ability to make a positive difference, and for their efforts to be fruitful.

I think we allow markdown tables using this syntax, but I really haven't debugged it very much and it could totally be broken: http://www.markdownguide.org/extended-syntax/#tables

What about The Precipice?

I'm sorry if I'm being ignorant because I haven't followed C-19 very closely recently, but can you point out what you take offense with?

I think population ethics and infinite ethics should be separated. They are different topics, although with relevant to each other.