How to promote widespread usage of high quality, reusable masks 2020-04-20T09:47:27.067Z


Comment by Tsunayoshi on Decreasing populism and improving democracy, evidence-based policy, and rationality · 2021-07-28T11:16:20.402Z · EA · GW

This is a very comprehensive report, thanks for posting.

Given that education is seen as a strong predictor of populist attitudes, it is interesting  that  many  interventions listed on the demand side  seem to target highly educated people (e.g. Our World in Data,  Factfullness,  Journalism, Fact checking in general, BPB). The Youtube channel Kurzgesagt and some things Last week tonight comes up with (e.g. the wrestler John Cena warning against conspiracy theories) seem a  bit better.  You mention research how they might affect policy, but it would also be interesting how they affect the attitudes of the broader audience in general.

Still, information spreading explicitly and effectively  targeted towards  people at risk of populist attitudes (older, less educated) seems kind of rare? Where are the civic education memes that can be shared in boomer facebook groups?  E.g. to combat conspiracy theories, I see a lot of videos with experts explaining the issue in simple terms, when this is exactly the kind of people that populists consider to be the elite not to be trusted.   

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Taylor Swift's "long story short" Is Actually About Effective Altruism and Longtermism (PARODY) · 2021-07-23T20:14:26.740Z · EA · GW

Chomsky publishing his new book, The Precipice,  mere months after Long Story Short clearly indicates  that he and Taylor must be closely working together.  I look forward to the surely upcoming 80000 hours joint appearance of Taylor Swift and Noam Chomsky.  

Comment by Tsunayoshi on COVID: How did we do? How can we know? · 2021-07-04T11:50:25.667Z · EA · GW

But shouldn't this update our priors towards mostly being on the happy timeline, in the West as well? Given that it took Sinovac/China one year from last March to this March to scale up, and that their vaccines are easier to manufacture than mRNA vaccines,  and if we assume high investment from the start in China (so their timeline is close to optimal), it really starts to look like we could not have done much better on manufacturing (because the West does not differ strongly in available doses compared to China)? 

I.e. we could have approved a few months earlier, but even in December the UK and the US (I think?)  were mostly bottlenecked by supply issues, so an earlier approval should not have changed much by this intuition.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on COVID: How did we do? How can we know? · 2021-07-02T13:31:19.477Z · EA · GW

I could not agree more with your sentiment, but the "We did ok" side has a point: If there was a much better policy or intervention, why was it  done by no country, and no philanthropist?  As a country, not much was stopping you a year ago to unilaterally prepurchase tons of vaccines and start manufacturing them. Getting 20 million doses manufactured early is much easier than 2 bn, you do not need to spend time coordinating with others etc., so what happened? From memory:

China only really started to vaccinate its citizens in March (but is doing it really fast now), despite approving the Sinopharm vaccine for EUA in July. Phase 3 data for their vaccines came in at the end of 2020, and seeing how urgent China is vaccinating now, it really does seem like manufacturing was their bottleneck.  Russia approved its Sputnik Vaccine in August and started mass production immediately, but appears to only have been able to produce 2 million doses instead of the estimated 30 million by 2020  because of manufacturing problems.

But you do not have to design your own vaccine, you could just prepurchase  a comparatively low amount of vaccines. There are enough oil states with no democratic decision making, so why did nobody say to Pfizer: "Here are 100 dollars per dose (9 times what the EU pays you) to start producing them now.  The same day you publish your Phase 3 trial results, we expect the doses at our doors so that we can vaccinate our citizens."? E.g. Qatar only has 2 million citizens, so surely they could have procured enough early on, from different manufacturers? 

And that is just the procurement/manufacturing side of things. There's also population wide rapid screening tests (AFAIK only Slovakia and Germany), pool testing (China and Rwanda), large, multicenter drug trials (only UK with the RECOVERY trial) as things that seem like extremely low hanging fruits but were neglected almost anywhere,  despite strong economic incentives to  get things right. 

I am noticing my confusion: Are our institutions really so bad at dealing with crises? Or is it much more difficult than it looks to implement changes and react to completely novel situations?

Comment by Tsunayoshi on COVID: How did we do? How can we know? · 2021-07-01T10:42:08.251Z · EA · GW

Oh, there is not a shred of doubt that the EU delayed buying the vaccines in order to lower the price, and I agree that this was a disastrous decision that led to supply delays. This is however a separate question from approving the vaccine, which is what my objection was about.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on COVID: How did we do? How can we know? · 2021-07-01T10:01:53.568Z · EA · GW

Well whatever one may think of it, the EMA had legitimate concerns, and was not merely dragging its feet for negotiation reasons as the OP implied.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on COVID: How did we do? How can we know? · 2021-07-01T09:07:38.086Z · EA · GW

"The EU's sluggishness, bullying, pandering to risk aversion, and total lack of (short-term) accountability for its own decisions. AZ approval came three months after UK approval, Pfizer three weeks after. Supposedly this was mostly taken up with haggling prices down from crazy low to crazy low."

The last sentence is uncharitable and wildly inaccurate. Do you have any evidence for this? Prior to approval, the contracts had already been finalized, and anyway, it's not the EMA (Europe's FDA equivalent) that is doing the haggling.  AZ approval was delayed because of the shoddy quality of their studies (and even more so in the US). Why Pfizer took longer is unknown, but it certainly included, meanwhile leaked, working through problems like this

For the Pfizer product, mRNA integrity for clinical batches came in at about 78%, compared with 55% for the proposed commercial batches, an EMA email dated November 23 states. That difference led to the concerns that Pfizer and the regulators worked through.

It is to the credit of the EMA that they did not publicly release these problems, thus not fuelling vaccine skepticism but instead taking the reputation hit of seemingly needlessly delaying  the approval.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on COVID: How did we do? How can we know? · 2021-06-30T19:27:32.480Z · EA · GW

"I am extremely puzzled why China or one of the other ahem non-individualist governments didn't do these." 

Even in China, politicians and scientists fear public backlash, especially considering how to Chinese eyes the virus seems much more dangerous/lethal than to Europeans, given what happened in Wuhan:

In mainland China, scientists are intrigued by the idea, but they said it would be difficult for the public to accept.

“It is difficult to do it in China. Recently there were some articles [online about HCT] and they drew a lot of criticisms,” said Zhu Fengcai, deputy director of the Jiangsu Provincial Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

Tao Lina, a Shanghai-based vaccine expert, said the risks were too great for researchers.

“Most people would not accept it … it is also hard to pass the ethical requirements,” he said.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on What are the 'PlayPumps' of cause prioritisation? · 2021-06-23T23:16:58.137Z · EA · GW

I like the example of the anti-overpopulation movement of the 1960s and 70s. It involved good intentions, but its predictions and fears (e.g. widespread famines) were completely unfounded from today's perspective. It also produced some very unfortunate policies in developing countries: 

"Millions of people were sterilized, often coercively, sometimes illegally, frequently in unsafe conditions, in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia and Bangladesh." This article seems like a good starting point.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on What are the 'PlayPumps' of cause prioritisation? · 2021-06-23T23:07:59.527Z · EA · GW

Not sure if it fits what you are looking for, but colonialism? A somewhat underappreciated aspect of it was that the belief that spreading Western civilization would make indigenous people better off, see e.g. White man's burden. Also, the Western powers were obviously very effective at colonizing. On the other hand, it somewhat lacks the part of the "play pump" example where everybody agrees that the responsible people had good intentions. Maybe it could be adapted to tales of Christian proselytizing in Africa, which would be relevant for your audience. 

Comment by Tsunayoshi on How well did EA-funded biorisk organisations do on Covid? · 2021-06-08T10:15:39.803Z · EA · GW

weeatquince's is sharing a widely held view, i.e. that eradication is superior to containment in health and economic outcomes, see e.g. this analysis. The idea itself is plausible, since a successful lockdown allows complete reopening of the internal economy afterwards.    

Sample size is however small, especially when it comes to non-island countries. I only know of two non-island countries that seriously went for eradication coupled with border closures, namely Vietnam and Israel. Israel gave up at one point when cases started to rise (which is why it is listed among the containment countries in the analysis above) , but Vietnam succeeded (although it had to restrict travel heavily domestically as well). Personally, I believe it is a suboptimal strategy for non- authoritarian, non-island countries.  

I think their original point stands though, that EA/rationalists did not seem to entertain the idea of eradication enough,  but probably neither did biorisk organizations last year.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on A proposal for a small inducement prize platform · 2021-06-05T22:03:44.784Z · EA · GW

Thank you for this great post. In the past I have looked for such platforms and concepts, but was unaware of the term 'inducement prize' and did not find much. 

Two extensions to the concept you presented could make it even more interesting, especially for the EA community. Firstly, rather than just requests being supplied to such a platform, offers to conduct e.g.  research  could be posted first by  qualified researchers in order to gauge interest. Secondly, there is no reason why there couldn't be several parties/individuals who pay the bounty collectively.  Essentially, this would be a "reverse kickstarter" use case, where  payment is made  after completion rather than in the beginning.  

It seems that there a lot of potential projects in the community with distributed interest and willingness-to-pay : literature reviews,  evaluations of possible cause areas,  research into personal Covid-19 risks etc. 

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Concerning the Recent 2019-Novel Coronavirus Outbreak · 2021-04-11T13:48:01.400Z · EA · GW

For posterity, I was wrong here because I was unaware of the dispersion parameter k that is substantially higher for SARS than for Covid-19.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Non-pharmaceutical interventions in pandemic preparedness and response · 2021-04-09T15:37:47.889Z · EA · GW

Truly excellent post! 

My intuition is that research abouts NPIs  on behavioural change might be more tractable and therefore impactful than research where the endpoint is infection.  If the endpoint is infection, any study that enrolls the general population will need to have very large sample sizes, as the examples you listed illustrate. I am sure these problems can be overcome, but I assume that one reason we have not seen more of these studies is that it is infeasible to do so without larger coordination.

 While it is unfortunate and truly surprising that we have very little research on e.g. the impact of mask wearing and distancing, we  do know that certain behavioural, realistic changes would be completely sufficient to squash the pandemic in many regions.

 The change does not have to be large: As the reproductive number R is magically hovering around ~1.1 to ~1.3 in most regions in the Western world, it would be sufficient if people would act just a little bit more careful to get R below 1: That could mean reducing private meetings by e.g. one third (or moving them outside),  widespread adoption of contact tracing apps,  placing air filters in schools, or targeting public health messaging towards people that currently are not reached or persuaded. I have seen some research about vaccine hesitancy, but far less about these other areas. At the very least, a randomized study comparing different kinds of public health messaging  seems really easy to do.and fairly useful.  This might look  differently for the next pandemic though.     

More broadly: As you alluded to, fostering and increasing coordination between researchers looking to conduct a study might also be really useful. This applies probably even more to research about drug interventions, but way too much of it is underpowered and badly conducted,  and thus pretty much useless before results have even been published.  This paper argues that the solutions are already  known  (e.g. multicenter trials), but not implemented widely due to institutional inertia. Again, it is worth looking into how to facilitate such  coordination, I believe that large cash grants by EA aligned institutions conditional on coordination between different trial sites could work.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Non-pharmaceutical interventions in pandemic preparedness and response · 2021-04-09T11:49:18.761Z · EA · GW

There's an additional factor: Marketing and public persuasion. It is one thing to say: Based on a theoretical model, air filters work, and a totally different thing to say: We saw that air filters cut transmission by X% . My hope would be that the certainty and the effect estimate could serve to overcome the collective inaction we saw in the pandemic (in that many people agree that e.g. air filters would probably help, but barely nobody installed them in schools). 

Comment by Tsunayoshi on [Coronavirus] Is it a good idea to meet people indoors if everyone's rapid antigen test came back negative? · 2021-03-25T02:23:41.839Z · EA · GW

[Epistemic status: This is mostly hobbyist research that I did to evaluate which tests to buy for myself]

The numbers listed by the manufacturers are not very useful, sadly. These are generally provided without a standard protocol or independent evaluation, and can be assumed to be a best case scenario in a sample of symptomatic individuals. On the other hand, as you note, the sensitivity of antigen tests increases when infectiousness is high.

 I am absolutely out of depth trying to balance these two factors, but luckily an empirical study from the UK  estimates based on contact tracing data that "The most and least sensitive LFDs [a type of rapid antigen tests used in the UK] would detect 90.5% (95%CI 90.1-90.8%) and 83.7% (83.2-84.1%) of cases with PCR-positive contacts respectively." So, if a person tests negative but is still Covid-19 positive, you can assume the likelihood of infection to be 10-20% of an average Covid-19 contact.  

With regards to self vs. professional testing, there does not seem to be a very clear picture yet, but this German study suggests basically equivalent sensitivity.    

You should also make sure to buy tests that were independently evaluated, you can find lists of such tests here or here. The listed numbers are hard to compare between different studies and tests, however, but the one you mentioned seems to have good results compared to other tests

I am honestly not sure how long the test results are valid, but 2 hours seems safe. I cannot comment on the other numbers provided by microCovid. 

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Dutch anti-trust regulator bans pro-animal welfare chicken cartel · 2021-02-25T19:39:06.369Z · EA · GW

No, my impression is that willingness to pay is a sufficient but not necessary condition to conclude that an industry standard benefits customers. A different sufficient condition would be an assessment of the effects of the standard by the regulators in terms of welfare. I assume that is the reason why the regulators in this case carried out an analysis of the welfare benefits, because why even do so if willingness-to-pay is the only factor? 

More speculatively, I would guess that Dutch regulators also take account welfare improvements to other  humans , and would not strike down an industry standard for safe food (if the standard actually contributed to safety). 

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Google's ethics is alarming · 2021-02-25T12:27:37.326Z · EA · GW

Thank you for this post. My stance is that when engaging with hot-button topics like these, we need to pay particular attention to the truthfulness and the full picture of the topic. I am afraid that your video simplifies the reasons for the dismissal of the two researchers quite a bit to "they were fired for being critical of the AI", and would benefit from giving a fuller account. I do not want to endorse any particular side here, but it seems important to mention that 

  1. Google wanted the paper to mention that  some techniques exist to mitigate the problems mentioned by Dr. Gebru. "Similarly, it [the paper] raised concerns about bias in language models, but didn’t take into account recent research to mitigate these issues"
  2.  Dr. Gebru sent an email to colleagues telling them to stop working on one of their assigned  tasks (diversity initiatives) because she did not believe those initiatives were sincere.  "Stop writing your documents because it doesn’t make a difference"
  3. Google alleges that Dr. Mitchell  shared company correspondence with outsiders.  

Whether or not you think any of this justifies the dismissal, these points should be mentioned in a truthful discussion.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Dutch anti-trust regulator bans pro-animal welfare chicken cartel · 2021-02-24T22:32:42.788Z · EA · GW

I think you might have an incorrect impression of the ruling. The agreement was not just struck down because consumers seemed to not be willing to pay for it, but also because the ACM (on top (!) of the missing willingness to pay) decided that the agreement  did not benefit consumers by the nature of the improvements (clearly, most of the benefit goes to the chickens). 

From the link: "In order to qualify for an exemption from the prohibition on cartels under the Dutch competition regime it is necessary that the benefits passed on to the consumers exceed the harm inflicted upon them under agreements."

Comment by Tsunayoshi on vaidehi_agarwalla's Shortform · 2021-01-21T15:13:23.489Z · EA · GW

There is also a quite active EA Discord server, which serves the function of "endless group discussions" fairly well, so another Slack workspace might have negligible benefits.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on EA and the Possible Decline of the US: Very Rough Thoughts · 2021-01-08T15:29:15.043Z · EA · GW

[Epistemic status: Uncertain, and also not American, so this is a 3rd party perspective]

As for the likelihood of some form of collapse, to me the current trajectory of polarization in the US seems unsustainable. Nowadays, members of both parties are split about whether they consider members of the other party "a threat to their way of life"(!)  and feelings towards the other party are rapidly declining.  

I do not think that this is just a fluke, as many political scientists argue that this is driven by an ideological sorting and a creation of a "mega-identity", where race, education and political leanings now all align with each other. Political debate seems overwhelmingly likely to get more acrimonious when disagreement is not just about facts, but about your whole identity, and when you consider the other side to be your enemy.  

It is only a slight overstatement to say that members of both parties live in two very different realities. There is almost no overlap  in the trusted news organizations  and the unprecedentedly constant approval rating of Donald Trump indicates that neither side changed their mind much in response to new information coming in.   

On the up side, "67% comprise 'the Exhausted Majority', whose members share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.” My worry is that this majority is increasingly drowned out by the radical voices in traditional and social media. 

It is also pertinent that political collapse can happen very fast and without much warning, like the Arab Spring and the collapse of the Soviet Union showed, which came unexpected to observers. Decline can also take the form of persistent riots/unrest where no one party has the political capital/strength to reach an agreement with the rioters or to stop it. Consequently, if decline of the US seems likely and bad, I would worry about it possibly happening quickly (<10 years).

Comment by Tsunayoshi on 80k hrs #88 - Response to criticism · 2020-12-12T22:11:32.293Z · EA · GW

Hi Mark, thanks for writing this post. I only had a cursory reading of your linked paper and the 80k episode transcript, but my impression is that Tristan's main worry (as I understand it)  and your analysis are not incompatible:  

Tristan and parts of broader society fear that through the recommendation algorithm, users discover radicalizing content. According to your paper, the algorithm does not favour and might even  actively be biased against e.g conspiracy content.

 Again, I am not terribly familiar with  the whole discussion, but so far I have not yet seen the point made clearly (enough), that both these claims can be true: The algorithm could show less "radicalizing" content than an unbiased algorithm would, but  even these fewer recommendations could be enough to radicalize the viewers compared to a baseline where the algorithm would recommend no such content.  Thus, YouTube could be accused of not "doing enough". 

Your own paper cites this paper arguing that there is a clear pattern of viewership migration from moderate "Intellectual Dark Web" channels to alt-right content based on an analysis of user comments. Despite the limitation of using only user comments that your paper mentions, I think that commenting users are still a valid subset of all users and  their movement towards more radical content  needs to be explained, and that the recommendation algorithm is certainly a plausible explanation.  Since you have doubts about this hypothesis, may I ask if you think there are likelier ways these users have radicalized?

A way to test the role of the recommendation algorithm could be to redo the analysis of the user movement data for comments left after the change of the recommendation algorithm. If the movement is basically the same despite less recommendations for radical content, that is evidence that the recommendations never played a role like you argue in this post. If however the movement towards alt-right or radical content is lessened, it is reasonable to conclude that recommendations have played a role in the past, and by extension could still play a (smaller) role now.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on 80k hrs #88 - Response to criticism · 2020-12-11T15:25:48.496Z · EA · GW

In general I agree, but the forum guidelines do state "Polish: We'd rather see an idea presented imperfectly than not see it at all.", and this is a post explicitly billed as "response" that were invited by Rob. So if this is all the time Mark wants to spend on it, I feel it is perfectly fine to have a post that is only for people who have listened to the podcast/are aware of the debate.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Introducing Probably Good: A New Career Guidance Organization · 2020-11-07T14:33:04.673Z · EA · GW

* Good can mean quality and morality: Again, I liked that. We do mean it in both ways (the advice is both attempting to be as high quality as possibly and as high as possible in moral impact, but we are working under uncertainty in both parameters).  

For what it's worth, I liked the name specifically because to me it seemed to advertise an intention of increasing a lot of readers' impact individually by a moderate amount, unlike 80000's approach where the goal is to increase  fewer readers' impact by a large amount. 

I.e. unlike Michael I like the understatement in the name, but I agree with him that it does convey understatement. 

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Avoiding Munich's Mistakes: Advice for CEA and Local Groups · 2020-11-04T13:04:07.153Z · EA · GW

Will, you are right that boycotting is not the right term for the phenomenon at hand. In addition to the reason you gave, a cancellation campaign mostly involves pressuring other organizations or people to boycott somebody. Plain old boycotting is one personal's decision  to not attend a talk, cancelling is demanding to stop the talk from even happening. 

However, I think there is some truth to the point that cancel culture is not the most productive term when used in discussions over whether it is actually a bad thing, precisely because as you say it suggests that people engaging in it are doing  something wrong and thus begs the question.  For a somewhat symmetrical situation, consider proponents of cancel culture starting a discussion over "Should Organization A be a platform for Person B's harmful views?".    

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Prioritization in Science - current view · 2020-11-02T13:37:28.958Z · EA · GW

Thanks for the write-up. Regarding the issue of loss of motivation when scientists work on research they are less intrinsically interested in: 

I know of at least one large scale historical experiment which did this. In the Soviet Union, science was reorganized to investigate areas specifically expected to increase social welfare (sadly sometimes the conclusions were predetermined by party cadres). This quote from an overview article seems relevant: 

Under the Bolshevik rule, scientists lost much of their autonomy and independence but acquired more social prestige and de facot influence on politically important decision making. The Soviet regime valued science more highly and allocated it a proportionally larger share of the national income than did contemporary governments in economically better developed and more prosperous countries. It strongly opposed the ideology of pure science, promoting instead the ideal of science as potentially usable- even if not always immediately applicable- knowledge about the world. (page 122) 

It might be worth looking into how and whether this actually worked to produce good research. 

Comment by Tsunayoshi on N-95 For All: A Covid-19 Policy Proposal · 2020-10-28T12:28:25.493Z · EA · GW

Thanks a lot for the in depth analysis, and great analysis on the efficacy of N-95 masks. 

However, I think that because of the whole politicization of mask wearing most discussion has missed a crucial point (and I have been guilty of this as well): In situations where people are ready to wear masks (shops, public transport) infection risk is not high and surgical masks are enough. In situations where  people generally do not wear masks (bars, restaurants, private meetings at home, all day at your workplace) risk is higher but willingness to wear masks lower. It is my understanding that this is where most of the infections happen, at least in Europe. KN95 masks have been more uncomfortable to wear than surgical ones in my experience, so my presumption is that N95 masks are not so comfortable that people will wear them all day ( please correct me if I am wrong). 

This does not mean that there are some situations wear N95 masks for the general population might be beneficial like barbershops or doctor visits. It just does not seem to me that there is a lot of potential to get R to below 1 with  mask wearing.

There might also be some value in designing face coverings that people would wear in more situations. For example these Japanese researchers claim to have a face shield design that prevents airborne spread much more efficiently.       

Comment by Tsunayoshi on A beginner data scientist tries her hand at biosecurity · 2020-10-25T00:49:10.804Z · EA · GW

Are you sure that this is the standard way in competitions? It is absolutely correct that before the final submission, one would find the best model by fitting it on a train set and evaluating it on the test set. However, once you found a best performing model that way, there is no reason not to train the model with the best parameters on the train+test set, and submit that one. (Submission are the predictions of the model on the validation set, not the parameters of the model).  After all, more data equals better performance.  

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Avoiding Munich's Mistakes: Advice for CEA and Local Groups · 2020-10-18T14:56:35.716Z · EA · GW

Jordan Peterson is probably indeed a good example. A more objective way to describe his demeanor than shamelessness is "not giving in". One major reason why he seems to be popular is his perceived willingness to stick to controversial claims. In turn that popularity is some form of protection against attempts to get him to resign from his position at the University of Toronto.

However, I think that there are significant differences between Peterson and EA's situation, so Peterson's example is not my endorsement of a "shamelessness" strategy.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Some thoughts on the effectiveness of the Fraunhofer Society · 2020-10-03T14:16:33.699Z · EA · GW
Almost all of the contract research is done for public projects, often in joint-ventures with companies. That way, most of the funding comes from public sources.

Could you please explain that further? Looking at this document, page 13, it says that almost 50% of the proceeds from contract research is from economic sources ("Wirtschaftserträge"), and only 41 percent of the contract research money comes from public sources ("EU" and "Bund/Länder"). If my reading is correct, then it would be misleading to say that "almost all" of the research is done for public projects. Or does the category "Wirtschaftserträge" also contain public projects somehow?

Comment by Tsunayoshi on EA Uni Group Forecasting Tournament! · 2020-09-21T12:01:31.871Z · EA · GW

Great idea, since you asked for suggestions, here are some:

  • I have been involved in many soccer prediction tournaments at work places or among friends. A frequent problem is that as the tournament goes on, many participants clearly have no chance of winning anymore, lose interest and drop out. Having alternative/intermediate awards (that can be purely symbolical) like "best predictions in December" or "fastest learner"(for most improved predictions) could be a fun way to mitigate that.
  • Depending on the number of people who sign up but are not associated with a university group, it might make sense to have the "People" category split by countries/regions. This would also facilitate some networking in countries where EAs have a hard time getting to know each other.
Comment by Tsunayoshi on EA considerations regarding increasing political polarization · 2020-06-20T20:34:00.887Z · EA · GW

As the post does not focus on assigning blame, it seems objectively relevant to include the alt-right. Of course definitions vary over what exactly the alt-right is but at a very basic level it is indisputable that the election of Trump has increased polarization in a way that I doubt a Mitt Romney (farther away from the far right than Trump) presidency would have.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on EA considerations regarding increasing political polarization · 2020-06-20T20:29:19.672Z · EA · GW
I'd be interested to hear some reactions from EAs abroad on this article's characterization of the American "far left."

To me it seems that the focus of the post is on socio-cultural issues rather than economic. To wit, Bernie Sanders may be categorzied as part of the far left, but the focus of his platform and message were economic rather than socio-cultural. Arguably, the culture war is almost entirely focused, well on culture: i.e. the number of people being cancelled over demanding lower taxes is zero.

So from my European perspective: Yes, Bernie Sanders' economic proposals seem moderate (but not all of them: "Break up the big banks" ) but the "social justice oriented liberalism" does not.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on EA considerations regarding increasing political polarization · 2020-06-20T20:15:37.533Z · EA · GW

I agree with this trend being very concerning.

One aspect that was not covered much in your post is how the EA community might be affected by increased polarization. Organizations/movements getting caught up and divided over the culture war is a frequent pattern (see e.g. the New Atheists), which would at the very least probably be very bad for trust and discourse norms in the community. Given the low percentage of some minorities in EA and EA's close relationship to academia, it is very conceivable that EA could come under more scrutiny and pressure in the future.

Of course this should be discussed in much more detail, but my intuition is that it would be beneficial to take actions to prevent that by remaining unoffensive to "both sides". Examples could be hiring practices that prevent discrimination and are meritocratic, or policies against sexual harassment that are supportive of the victim and prevent decision-making by outrage.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on 2019 - Year in Review · 2020-06-09T11:14:22.380Z · EA · GW
working hypothesis that a much broader fraction of the population might be interested in donating effectively compared to becoming full fledged and dedicated EAs

N<10, but I have had some friends approach me asking, I would like to help cause X, how can I do it most effectively. This is also one of the more frequent requests we get in our local EA group.

In general, people should have a much easier time asking the question how to e.g. support climate change most effectively, rather than whether to support climate change vs. long term risk reduction. The latter requires a substantial change of values and therefore also often identity while the former seems like a more practical question.

Therefore, this seems like a very promising and straightforward initiative!

Comment by Tsunayoshi on 2019 - Year in Review · 2020-06-09T11:05:40.459Z · EA · GW

Sebastian, those two media reports seem rather positive and you outline your cause very well. I also realize that this is something you have less control over, but both of those clips have a clear association with EA. They both talk about William MacAskill as the founder of EA, the second one has a tag calling you "Supporter of Effective Altruism", while the first one has a separate interview with an anonymous person who is being introduced and interviewed as a member of the EA community. Thus at least those two clips *did* have a strong emphasis on the EA brand which seems to be somewhat in opposition to "We do not emphasize the EA brand in our activities and communications".

To be clear, I do not think of this as a net negative, especially if the portrayals are as sympathetic to the cause as the ones you linked.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on External evaluation of GiveWell's research · 2020-05-22T12:10:05.778Z · EA · GW

Related to external evaluations: 80000hours used to have a little box at the bottom of an article, indicating a score given to it by internal and external evaluators. Does anybody know, why this is not being done anymore?

Comment by Tsunayoshi on How to promote widespread usage of high quality, reusable masks · 2020-04-20T11:54:48.156Z · EA · GW

Point 2 is fair, but do note that I did post this under question, so some degree of uncertainty is implied.

Point 3 seems like addressing a standard that is at the very least not consistently applied. I went back through all question posts of the last 6 months; this seems to be fairly similar in form to this question and does not contain a cost-benefit analysis either. And as already mentioned, it is still part of the question category.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on How to promote widespread usage of high quality, reusable masks · 2020-04-20T11:40:32.354Z · EA · GW

1) I was aware of this podcast, and actually contemplated not posting because the superficial similarity between the topics might be a problem. First of all Lewis' criticism is not just slightly different, it's all about EA's discussion of cloth masks. About medical masks, which this post is about, he specifically says "medical masks are pretty good for the general population which I’ll just about lean in favor of, although all of these things are uncertain.". Furthermore I am uncertain whether one very recent expert's opinion should promote a huge shift in EA's consensus on this topic.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Coronavirus Research Ideas for EAs · 2020-03-30T15:50:18.162Z · EA · GW

[Epistemic status: Uncertain]

While working on covid-19 is by no means neglected, working on unconventional solutions is. I would be surprised, if there is a serious organization outside of the EA sphere evaluating just one of these proposals:

Robin Hanson has suggested both variolation, and controlled infection of essential workers.

Distribution of medical knowledge to amateurs. As most people in the third world will not have access to medically trained professionals, they will turn to local sources of treatment. Having some people armed with a bunch of youtube videos and DIY respirators as your sole treatment option is terrible, but might be less terrible than no treatment or herbal remedies.

Research into whether these ideas might be valuable or could cause long term harm to the EA community might be really important.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on [Linkpost] - Mitigation versus Supression for COVID-19 · 2020-03-17T22:45:45.500Z · EA · GW

Not an expert myself, but the naive calculations that I have seen with regards to herd immunity are incorrect. The precise numbers are just to illustrate the thought process.

"We need 60-70% of people to be immune, people 65 and younger make up 65 % percent of the population, so if they catch it we have achieved herd immunity to protect the elderly".

The flaw with that reasoning is that the immune people need to be essentially randomly distributed in the population. However, the elderly make up a sub population with their own distinct networks, in which the virus can spread after the quarantines are lifted.

It also would probably not work in much (probably the larger part) of the world, where the elderly live together with their families, unless one would relocate them to special made quarantines.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Are there any public health funding opportunities with COVID-19 that are plausibly competitive with Givewell top charities per dollar? · 2020-03-13T12:02:27.444Z · EA · GW

Fund a study to investigate the use of DIY-masks. Promote their use to at risk population, and fund add campaigns with scientists.

Although Western governments have come out against face masks, Eastern ones (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan) are strongly in favor of people wearing face masks to protect themselves. There is evidence, that even homemade masks are good at protecting people from respiratory droplets . These could be used if the shortage in surgical masks persist.

Since in the West nobody is promoting this evidence in favour of face masks, this is a potential high impact intervention.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on COVID-19 brief for friends and family · 2020-02-29T14:29:40.159Z · EA · GW

There will not be a vaccine soon, but anti-viral drugs are currently in an FDA approved Phase 3 trial, and from what I have heard could be both approved and available in May.

There is evidence that higher temperatures will limit the spread: Africa has so far been mostly spared, and warm places like Singapore are doing much better than Japan or South Korea.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Any response from OpenAI (or EA in general) about the Technology Review feature on OpenAI? · 2020-02-24T22:29:01.787Z · EA · GW

It's important to react with an open mind to outside criticism of EA work, and to especially engage with the strong points. Most of the responses posted here so far (including the links to tweets of other researchers) fail to do so.

Yes, the article has a much more accusing tone than content. But, the two main criticisms are actually clear and fairly reasonable, particularly given that OpenAi (as per the article) acknowledges the importance of being respected in the greater machine learning community:

1)Whatever it is that you think about the value of openness in AI research, if you call yourself OpenAI(!) people WILL expect you to be open about your work. Even though the Charta was changed to reflect that, most people will not be aware of this change.

2) I actually agree with the article that much of OpenAI's press releases feel like exaggerated hype. While I personally agree with the decision itself to not immediately release GPT-2, it was communicated with the air of "it's too dangerous and powerful to release". This was met with a strong negative reaction, which is not how you become the trusted authority on AI safety. (see here

Another instance that I personally thought was pretty egregious was the announcement of Microsoft's investment: :

We’re partnering to develop a hardware and software platform within Microsoft Azure which will scale to AGI.

Note that this sentence does not include "attempt", or "we hope will scale" .It is hard to read this without coming away with the impression that OpenAI has a very high degree of confidence in being able to build an AGI, and promising so to the world.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on COVID-19 Risk Assessment App Idea for Vetting and Discussion · 2020-02-20T20:18:56.507Z · EA · GW

Just to be clear, to me the fact that Western government are already doing it is a positive point in favor of your proposal, since it is evidence for utility of contact tracing in containing the virus.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on COVID-19 Risk Assessment App Idea for Vetting and Discussion · 2020-02-20T14:06:46.545Z · EA · GW

Your sections on incentive design is very persuasive, and seems like a great starting point.

And before I start with my concerns, Western governments are already kind of doing a similar thing: They identify contacts of infected people, including people who dined at the same restaurant at a similar time, in order to test them.

However, some concerns/questions that were partly raised in the fb group already:

0)Even basic questions about the virus and how it spreads are still unanswered, like how infectious one is during the incubation period. This makes more advanced questions regarding a risk score difficult to answer.

1) How likely are you to catch the virus at all just by being in the same area/frequenting the same shops as somebody infected? My impression from the Western cases so far was that it infections occurred generally with close contacts; this risk changes obviously when more infected people are around, but still should be estimated to decide whether such an app would be worth it.

2) Regarding the computation of the risk score: If you only use confirmed cases with voluntary sign up, you might not get enough data; if you use suspected cases by symptoms, you will get a lot of false positives due to worried people with the flu. In the absence of data on how to properly account for that, this is a very difficult problem.

3) You mention that Google traffic data is still useful, even when few people use it. I am not familiar with that part of the app, but if it involves some form of prediction, it is important to note that Google has had years to get this right. With a pandemic, you have at best months(!), and on top of that the situation changes constantly.

Given what I assume is a dearth of good historical data on every aspect of this , I think that calculating both an accurate risk score AND communicating it without doing more harm than good, is a very tough problem.

A dumbed down (but maybe not useful anymore) version of the app could just do without the risk score. It would essentially be a more convenient approach for governments to identify people who have been to certain areas to self-isolate or watch their symptoms. The location tracking and notification could still be done by the app, but the decision making would lie with health offices.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Concerning the Recent 2019-Novel Coronavirus Outbreak · 2020-02-02T00:02:31.212Z · EA · GW

I am extremely skeptical of the high R0 estimate for one reason: SARS has a lower R0, but was much worse overseas than nCov currently is.

According to the Lancet report you linked, SARS has an R0 of around 2 in China, so substantially lower than nCov. However, we know how the first cases abroad spread. Compared to the current situation, it was far far worse, by mortality and by number of cases. The first case in Toronto infected first her family, then some hospital works who in turn spread it further until the whole hospital had to be closed. Eyeballing the graph for Canada found here, this really does not look like the situation we currently have, despite higher interconnection and more rigorous testing (more testing -> more discovered cases).

So far the majority of overseas cases are still travelers from China; the people that they infected are generally close contacts; it is positively surprising how few spouses seem to get the virus. This can also not just be attributed to higher awareness I think. Even before the news story of a new dangerous story broke, there were no human-to-human transmissions overseas despite some travelers already present.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Concerning the Recent 2019-Novel Coronavirus Outbreak · 2020-02-01T23:29:07.987Z · EA · GW

The link to the Lancet study seems to be broken when I click on it, although the text of the link itself is correct. This should be (hopefully) a working link:

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Concerning the Recent 2019-Novel Coronavirus Outbreak · 2020-02-01T16:29:08.920Z · EA · GW

Just some quick thoughts:

-Your lowest discovery rate (15%) might still be too high, this recent preprint estimates 0.05%

-The spreadsheet compares the current number of deaths with the current number of known cases. However, deaths will always leak behind the number of confirmed cases; this way you will be underestimating death rate.

-It might also be interesting to do some back of the envelope math on the cases outside of China, since discovery rate should be much higher. So far, there are very few serious, and I think no critical conditions. However, most confirmed infections outside of China are actually people who were infected in China and then traveled overseas which selects for people healthy enough to travel, so mostly younger. Doing a proper analysis of those numbers will be hard; one could compare them to SARS figures of the relevant age bracket.

Comment by Tsunayoshi on Concerning the Recent 2019-Novel Coronavirus Outbreak · 2020-01-29T11:52:10.192Z · EA · GW

Some slightly positive evidence: By the 24th, 19 cases had been reported outside of China, with onset of symptoms usually before that. Given the most recent estimate of a mean incubation period of 5 days, it seems surprising that only 1 of the 19 cases has infected another person that we know of so far (a man traveling from Wuhan to Vietnam infected his son, who shared a hotel room with his father for 3 days). Since monitoring of people the infected came into contact with is high, finding infected people should be fairly quick.

Seems that effective containment, a lower R0 than expected (both good), or a longer incubation period than previously assumed (bad) could be the reason.

Source for the 19 cases by the 24th: