EA Forum Reader

Ya, the analyses explicitly include spillover effects on some individuals who aren't directly affected by the interventions (i.e. household family members), but ignores potentially important predictable nearterm indirect effects (those on nonhuman animals) and all of the far future effects. And it doesn't explain why.

However, ignoring effects on nonhuman animals and the far future is typical for analyses of global health and poverty interventions. And this is discussed in other places where cause prioritization is the main topic. I'd guess, based on comments elsewhere on the EA Forum and other EA-related spaces, nonhuman animal effects are ignored because the authors don't agree with giving nonhuman animals so much moral weight relative to humans, or are doing worldview diversification and they aren't confident in such high moral weights. I don't think we'd want a comment like Vasco's on many global health and poverty intervention posts, because we don't want to have the same discussion scattered and repeated this way, especially when there are better places to have it. Instead, Vasco's own posts, posts about moral weight and posts about cause prioritization would be better places.

When people bring up effects on wild fish, I often point out that they're thinking about it the wrong way (getting the supply responses wrong) and ignoring population effects. But I'm pretty sure this is something they would care about if informed, and there aren't that many posts about wild fish. I also suspect we should be more worried about animal product reduction backfiring in the near term because of wild animal effects, but I think this is more controversial and animal product reduction is covered much more on the EA Forum than fishing in particular, so passing comments on posts about diet change and substitutes doesn't seem like a good way to have this discussion.

I guess there's a question of whether a comment like Vasco's would be welcome every now and then on global health and poverty posts, but it could be a slippery slope.

What I mean is "these forecasts give no more information than flipping a coin to decide whether AGI would come in time period A vs. time period B".

I have my own, rough, inside views about if and when AGI will come and what it would be able to do, and I don't find it helpful to quantify them into a specific probability distribution. And there's no "default distribution" here that I can think of either.

I would say we are basically on the exact same page in terms of the overall vision. I'm also trying to get at these logical chains of information that we can travel backwards through to easily sanity check and also do data analysis. 

Where I think we break is if there is no underlying structure to these logical chains outside of a bunch of arrows pointing between links, it reduces our ability to automate and take away insights. 

A few examples 

•  you link to a ea forum post with multiple claims. In order to build logical chains, we now need a database to store each claim in each post. In order to do this, we now need to convince everyone to use certain formatting on claims or try to use an LLM to parse.
• you link multiple sources, which themselves link multiple sources. Since linking is just drawing arrows in an abstract sense, I have no ability to discern how much each source went into the guess. I assume we would just use a uniform distribution to model how much each source went into the final guess? but this is clearly terribly off in many cases so we lose a lot of information. 
  • If we link to models we hold a lot more information down the chain. 

Overall I wouldn't say my proposition isn't a full substitute for your idea, but I think there is overlapping functionality. 

Hey Luis, to be clear, I agree with your post (and using a new name - I like context-specific GPR).

My main proposal which may have been unclear is that you proactively reach out to folks who uses the old definition in their work, in case they don't see this post, and suggest they edit their posts.

I had the same impression, that a big picture view talk was expected but that the actual talk was focused on a single issue and in a fairly philosophical framing.

So I thought it was an excellent talk but it still gave me a strange feeling as the dominant and first EAG response to what happened (I know this made sense given other sessions covering other aspects, but I am unsure it will be perceived this way (one slice of the puzzle) given its keynote character).

Thanks Vasco, these are great. Though, where are you getting the depression baseline from?

Very cool! I’m excited to see where this project goes.

This feels like a missed opportunity.

My sense is that this was an opportunity to give a "big picture view" rather than note a particular underrated aspect. 

If you think there were more important improvements, why not say them, at least as context, in one of the largest forums on this topic?

Thanks for your work :)

I would say it a little differently. I would say that "judgmental" forecasting, the kind typically done on Metaculus or Good Judgement Open or similar platforms, CAN involve mathemtical models, but oftentimes people are just doing some simple math, if any at all. In cases where people do use models, sure it would make sense to link to them as sources, and I agree that would also be valuable to track for similar reasons. Guesstimate seems like the obvious place to do that.

I think that is separate from the proposition I intended to communicate for primarily text based research. 

I also wasn't anticipating any need to do scraping if this was implemented by the two platforms themselves. It should be easy enough for them to tell if a citation is linking to an EA forum post? Metaculus doesn't have a footnote/citation formatting tool today like the EA Forum's. (Although if you were to scrape, finding EA forum links within citations on this forum seems pretty well defined and achievable? idk, I don't write much code, thus me floating this out here for feedback)

Thanks for the thoughts!