Nate Silver on his theory of SBF and top criticisms of effective altruism

[@jackeasling3294]

This is awesome! Can we expect every podcast episode to be in video form, going forward? :D

[@wesr9258]

47:48 Arguably this is already sort of the case, namely with subgroups based on location, field, etc, and there is an annual meeting of was that (I think)changes location quite a bit. Namely, EAg.

[@mharley3791]

Great interview. I guess I’m a little bit confused about Nate’s disagreement with the researchers claim that we don’t have enough data to be able to actually determine which forecasters are actually effective in comparison to each other. The paper isn’t saying that we shouldn’t model or that models don’t have their uses, but rather it’s extremely hard to know how accurate is in comparison to other others in any given moment

[@MisterFds]

Rob, Nate is no longer a FiveThirtyEight election forecaster; he's with the Silver Bulletin. Also, you speak at an incredibly high rate.

[@wesr9258]

58:21 Wren seems pretty rational, what with them doing EVs on most [Tons of CO2 equivalent] removed per dollar (I think.) they have a discord where its easy to talk to Them. They know about EA, and like they totally can become more logical just by us telling them “hey, maybe be more logical” in said discord.

[@anthonybailey4530]

Winner's tilt isn't at all new, right? It's aka/formalized as winner's curse. I notice I am confused here because it is *part of* Goodhart's Curse / tails come apart arguments often encountered in AIXR circles, so 80K should know it well. (Clarifications: tilt affects the person, the curse affects the system, the chemicals note is valuable.) (I wish there were comments on the podcast itself, but here seemed my best affordance, lmk if wrong.)

[@wesr9258]

52:48 cut

[@clarkmelchert8739]

interesting comparison of the sams

[@lxb88b]

Nate Silver is often wrong. Take note, Harris will win