Elliot Olds's guest appearances

Elliot Olds

Village Global's Venture Stories

The Nonlinear Library

The Nonlinear Library: EA Forum

Peter Thiel

Bryan Caplan

Robin Hanson

Samo Burja

Michael Nielsen

Tyler Cowen

Josh Wolfe

Marc Andreessen

Steven Pinker

Kyle Samani

Dan Zuller

Travis Kling

Keith Rabois

Cal Newport

Nir Eyal

OwlTail

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: Proposal: Impact List -- like the Forbes List except for impact via donations, published by Elliot Olds on May 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.SummaryI'm seeking feedback on and collaborators for the creation, popularization, and maintenance of a list which ranks the top N living people by their positive impact via donations. The goal is to make the list popular enough to increase the status awarded to those who rank highly, bring more awareness to the importance of donation effectiveness, and ultimately cause people to donate more effectively and/or donate more money.Details of the listI still have a lot of uncertainty about how the list should work, but this is my current view:People are ranked by the total lifetime amount of money donated to altruistic causes, scaled by effectiveness as determined by Impact List researchers (via a mix of independent research and repurposing research from GiveWell and other organizations).The first version might contain somewhere between 100 and 1,000 people.Viewers can specify their values which are taken into account by the rankings: how much weight to give animals, people who will exist in the far future, etc. The default settings would attempt to capture the values of the median viewer.The following columns exist, which the viewer can rank by:The raw (unscaled) total amount donated (which can be changed to the amount in a specific year)Amount pledgedNet worthThe list can be filtered by cause area.There's a drop-down to view alternate rankings provided by other organizations.Any organization submitting a new ranking metric must also submit the reasoning / calculations behind the scaling factors they assign to donation recipients.There's a page for each person showing every donation they've made, when it was made, and the scaled effectiveness of the donation according to Impact List and other organizations.There's a page for each donation recipient showing the research and calculations for why it has the effectiveness rating that it does, according to Impact List and any other organization that has provided their own research.Causal mechanismsIf Impact List becomes popular it could influence people's donations in the following ways:The list focuses attention on large (and potentially surprising to many viewers) differences in donation effectiveness, and on how much positive impact others are having. This may lead people to want to have more impact for its own sake.Attention on the list increases the status reward for giving effectively as well as the status penalty for giving ineffectively.An explicit ranking might make some donors want to rank higher than others for competitive reasons.The website could serve as an on-ramp for future EAs, with links to further reading. Billionaires may occasionally visit the website to check their ranking and the reasoning behind it, which could help us acquire more Sam Bankman-Frieds or Dustin Moskovitzs.Note that reasons #1 and (the first part of) #4 could apply roughly equally to anyone who is aware of the list, not just those wealthy enough to potentially appear on it.A large continuous auctionBecause so many existing donations by the world’s wealthiest people are much less effective than they could be, spots on the list will initially be available for relatively low donation amounts to those who donate effectively. A list of size 1,000 might initially present an opportunity to hundreds of thousands of people to potentially appear on it (and push an ineffective donor off). This means that all four reasons above could be relevant for many more people than the size of the list.To encourage the donations of the list members to continuously become more effective the UI could have a tool which shows people who aren't on the list how much money they'd need to don...

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: Proposal: Impact List -- like the Forbes List except for impact via donations, published by Elliot Olds on May 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary I'm seeking feedback on and collaborators for the creation, popularization, and maintenance of a list which ranks the top N living people by their positive impact via donations. The goal is to make the list popular enough to increase the status awarded to those who rank highly, bring more awareness to the importance of donation effectiveness, and ultimately cause people to donate more effectively and/or donate more money. Details of the list I still have a lot of uncertainty about how the list should work, but this is my current view: People are ranked by the total lifetime amount of money donated to altruistic causes, scaled by effectiveness as determined by Impact List researchers (via a mix of independent research and repurposing research from GiveWell and other organizations). The first version might contain somewhere between 100 and 1,000 people. Viewers can specify their values which are taken into account by the rankings: how much weight to give animals, people who will exist in the far future, etc. The default settings would attempt to capture the values of the median viewer. The following columns exist, which the viewer can rank by: The raw (unscaled) total amount donated (which can be changed to the amount in a specific year) Amount pledged Net worth The list can be filtered by cause area. There's a drop-down to view alternate rankings provided by other organizations. Any organization submitting a new ranking metric must also submit the reasoning / calculations behind the scaling factors they assign to donation recipients. There's a page for each person showing every donation they've made, when it was made, and the scaled effectiveness of the donation according to Impact List and other organizations. There's a page for each donation recipient showing the research and calculations for why it has the effectiveness rating that it does, according to Impact List and any other organization that has provided their own research. Causal mechanisms If Impact List becomes popular it could influence people's donations in the following ways: The list focuses attention on large (and potentially surprising to many viewers) differences in donation effectiveness, and on how much positive impact others are having. This may lead people to want to have more impact for its own sake. Attention on the list increases the status reward for giving effectively as well as the status penalty for giving ineffectively. An explicit ranking might make some donors want to rank higher than others for competitive reasons. The website could serve as an on-ramp for future EAs, with links to further reading. Billionaires may occasionally visit the website to check their ranking and the reasoning behind it, which could help us acquire more Sam Bankman-Frieds or Dustin Moskovitzs. Note that reasons #1 and (the first part of) #4 could apply roughly equally to anyone who is aware of the list, not just those wealthy enough to potentially appear on it. A large continuous auction Because so many existing donations by the world’s wealthiest people are much less effective than they could be, spots on the list will initially be available for relatively low donation amounts to those who donate effectively. A list of size 1,000 might initially present an opportunity to hundreds of thousands of people to potentially appear on it (and push an ineffective donor off). This means that all four reasons above could be relevant for many more people than the size of the list. To encourage the donations of the list members to continuously become more effective the UI could have a tool which shows people who aren't on the list how much money they'd need to don...

EA - Proposal: Impact List -- like the Forbes List except for impact via donations by Elliot Olds

Erik interviews Elliot Olds (@elliot_olds) on this episode. He is a thinker on AI, crypto, economics and prediction markets.(Remember — applications for the winter vintage of our network catalyst accelerator are due September 20 — make sure to apply before then. Check out more info below.)They talk about:- The merits of prediction markets, and why they can be thought of as a “meta solution” akin to a generalized AI- The technical and political hurdles that prediction markets face- The most prominent arguments against prediction markets and the responses to them - The idea that markets are eating the world and its implications- Whether it would be wise to outsource your personal decisions to the crowd- Governance in crypto- What it would take to make prediction markets mainstream Thanks for listening — if you like what you hear, please review us on your favorite podcast platform. Check us out on the web at villageglobal.vc or get in touch with us on Twitter @villageglobal.Venture Stories is brought to you by Village Global, is hosted by co-founder and partner, Erik Torenberg.__Village Global’s Network Catalyst accelerator is a personalized program that features masterclasses from some of the best in Silicon Valley and a dedicated network leader focused on making the introductions you need to turbocharge your company. You can participate in-person in San Francisco or virtually from anywhere around the world. Find out more and apply before September 20 at villageglobal.vc/networkcatalyst.

Erik interviews Elliot Olds (@elliot_olds) on this episode. He is a thinker on AI, crypto, economics and prediction markets. (Remember — applications for the winter vintage of our network catalyst accelerator are due September 20 — make sure to apply before then. Check out more info below.) They talk about: - The merits of prediction markets, and why they can be thought of as a “meta solution” akin to a generalized AI - The technical and political hurdles that prediction markets face - The most prominent arguments against prediction markets and the responses to them - The idea that markets are eating the world and its implications - Whether it would be wise to outsource your personal decisions to the crowd - Governance in crypto - What it would take to make prediction markets mainstream Thanks for listening — if you like what you hear, please review us on your favorite podcast platform. Check us out on the web at <a href="http://villageglobal.vc" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">villageglobal.vc</a> or get in touch with us on Twitter @villageglobal. Venture Stories is brought to you by Village Global, is hosted by co-founder and partner, Erik Torenberg. __ Village Global’s Network Catalyst accelerator is a personalized program that features masterclasses from some of the best in Silicon Valley and a dedicated network leader focused on making the introductions you need to turbocharge your company. You can participate in-person in San Francisco or virtually from anywhere around the world. Find out more and apply before September 20 at <a href="http://villageglobal.vc/networkcatalyst" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">villageglobal.vc/networkcatalyst</a>.

Prediction Markets, AI, and Crypto Governance with Elliot Olds