The cause areas have a big emphasis on animal welfare, which isn't something that ranks very high up in my personal moral calculus. My top priorities mostly fall under the "global health and wellbeing" category, which admittedly is represented on the site, but only at the same level of prominence as e.g. "insect welfare in farmed, wild, and research context".

A big +1 for @Austin's comments here. Zvi is a very thoughful and prolific writer with an intense focus on identifying problems in the world and thinking through ways to mitigate them. It's exciting to see him put some of these thoughts into practice and I'm optimistic about what he'll be able to accomplish.

This is fascinating work and I'm excited to see it happen. I think this is a tough one to fund with impact certificates, though, because the marginal impact from providing funding seems relatively low. The prospective grantee expects to do this work whether they receive funding or not, so the main value grants would add is submission to more prestegious journals.

I think this is a compelling concept, but ultimately assessing impact of a research area is at least somewhat subjective, if not speculative. I found that the causes promoted by Effective Thesis didn't line up well with my own priorities, so I decided against funding this project. However, I wish them the best and support their overall mission.

I'm curious to learn more about the second primary outcome, "measure information retrieval + architecture tweaks vs crowd performance on prediction markets". This sounds like the main tie-in to forecasting. Is the idea to predict the probability of an event using GPT-3 (either by asking directly or extracting probabilities in a lower-level way) and compare the accuracy of these predictions to prediction markets?