Our board now has more roles than before (1600+), and a public Airtable version that you can use to set up custom views and automations (including with Slack). A quick guide for using the new Airtable: 1. Open the public Airtable and click "Use this data". Make sure "Create a synced table" is selected. Choose which Airtable base you'd like the jobs data to live in. This creates a read-only synced table with our published roles. 2. Create a filtered view in the new table (e.g., filter by cause area, location, or role type). 3. From here, you can set up Slack notifications: 1. Trigger: "When record enters view", selecting the filtered view you created in step 2.  2. Action: "Send a Slack message" (via Airtable’s built-in Slack integration) 3. Compose your message using field tokens to pull in live data from each role, e.g. New role: {Job Title} at {Org Name} | {Job URL}. Use markdown for basic formatting like bold or italics.  If you use our job board, here’s a few ways you can help us to help you: * Test out the new Airtable and let us know if there are any issues or if you do anything cool with it. * If you land a role that you found on the job board, please get in touch! Even a short message about how our services helped you makes a huge difference to our ability to continue providing these services. * If you know of any orgs you think we should monitor for the board (including ones you work for), please share them! * If you work at an org that's listed on the board, note that links to your roles from our job board automatically include utm_source=probablygood_board so if you track referral sources, you'll be able to see applications that came via us. If you have a question on your application forms regarding where candidates heard about the role, please also consider adding "Probably Good" as an option.  * If you’re a hiring manager/recruiter who ends up hiring a candidate who found your role through our job board, please let us know! Othe

Over 40% of my lifetime donations happened this month. I expect to never be able to make that statement again. These are weird times. For context on why it is extra weird, I've been donating since 2015 and have always donated 10% of my salary each year (or more).

Calling all artists! I'm organising an open mic near the EAG venue this Friday evening - if you create art related to EA and are looking for an audience that might understand it, here's your chance! I'd love to see it. https://luma.com/w40us7hr

Significant fractions of Magnifica Humanitas, the papal encylical on safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence, is written significantly by AI, most likely Claude. I currently believe Pope Leo himself was not personally responsible (encyclicals tend to be group projects), however the AI usage is likely substantial enough that it's not the result of minor brushups or AI translation: https://linch.substack.com/p/claude-author-of-the-humanitas Key claims: 1. Significant fractions of the recent papal encyclical are written by AI. I provide multiple lines of evidence for this. 2. We can corroborate the vibes and tonal indications with statistical evidence. Phrases and punctuation much more commonly used by AI are much more present in this papal encyclical than past encyclicals. 3. The best commercially available AI detector, Pangram, notes that some paragraphs are between 40% and 100% AI, while most paragraphs appear to be 0% AI. 1. This is unlikely to be a false positive: 1. 0% of paragraphs in past encyclicals I backtested are registered as AI. 2. Pangram in general has a very low false positive rate 4. This is overall very unlikely to be a translation artifact (including AI translation). We again have multiple lines of evidence: 1. All the most prominent signs of AI I observed in English are preserved verbatim in the Italian version, as well as in other translations. 2. The Italian version of the current encyclical also gets flagged as AI by Pangram (actually more so than the English version), though I’m not aware of academic research or rigorous testing of Pangram’s service when applied to Italian) 3. Backtesting AI translation of past encyclicals get 0% on Pangram 5. The specific AI used is most likely Claude, judging by both textual and circumstantial evidence. 6. Different sections of the encyclical have very different rates of apparent AI usage. This indicates to me that some cardinals used AI assi

What would need to happen for you to stand down on AI safety? I’m not saying you should. I’m not saying you will. But what evidence would make you substantially less concerned than you are today? I’ve been asking people at EAG London some variation of two questions: * How worried are you about the economic and existential risks from AI? * What is the 'expiry date' of those worries? This may seem leading, as if I’m implying that I’m not fully convinced by the broader arguments. Well, I’m not… not. My position is that I’m under-informed. But I still want to know how those better informed than I think about the limits of their concern. So… is it a matter of time? If nothing substantially bad has happened in 10 years, will we stop fearing? Or is it a matter of meeting certain benchmarks of cooperation? Could it be when governments figure out a method of wealth redistribution that doesn’t result in societal decline? Let me know your thoughts!