I’ve often found it very difficult to find EA documents on a particular topic. I had an epiphany a couple of days ago when I realized that, well… you can just ask Google to do this for you. Since there may be other people who, like my previous self, have not yet realized this, I will explain here how it works. It is very simple: if you want, say, to learn about bees, you just type in the Google search bar something like[1]

bees site:effectivealtruism.org OR site:80000hours.org

The point is that you can specify a set of websites to restrict the search. On the example above the search is restricted to two websites, but more can be added, for instance:

bees site:effectivealtruism.org OR site:80000hours.org OR site:eaglobal.org OR site:openphilanthropy.org OR site:givewell.org OR site:animalcharityevaluators.org OR site:globalprioritiesinstitute.org

The list of websites can of course be expanded further. I now have a long list of websites including those above which I copy-paste to the search bar each time I want to look for something in the EA sphere. All the other standard tools to optimize a Google search remain available, such as restricting the time range (using the “Tools” menu), imposing a file type (by writing, for instance, “filetype:pdf”), excluding a word (by preceding it with a minus sign), looking for images or videos only, etc.

Let me add to this that there are also very useful curated lists of EA documents sorted by topic at resources.eahub.org.

I think it would be really valuable if a website such as eahub.org included a search form which would do some version of this. (In my opinion, the list of included websites should be quite long by default, with an option that allows to restrict the search to a subset of websites chosen by the user.)


    1. A direct link to this search query can be created like this. ↩︎

60

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments7


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks Jc! The Hub team has been thinking about having an "Search all of EA" button for a while, but it never quite bubbled up to the top of our to do list. Your explanation of how it could work, as well as John Maxwell's description, make it seem more doable than I previously thought. I'll be discussing this with the rest of the team.

Yep, this feature would be extremely useful! Indeed, for some programming languages such customized google engines exist and works reasonably well. Don't know how they did that, but here are two examples: https://rseek.org/ and http://steampiano.net/julia-search/index.html .

Awesome, I hope it will work out!

I assembled a huge list of domains like this and created a custom search engine using this tool from Google. Unfortunately despite it being Google, the search results are really terrible, so I never posted it. (Example: a search for "capacity-building" returns 5 results, none of which are this page. I know it's picking up concepts.effectivealtruism.org because when I search for "moral uncertainty" the #2 result is from concepts.effectivealtruism.org. BTW, I included quite a number of domains in the search engine, not all the results are necessarily EA-related.)

https://searchstack.co is a nice little tool which makes use of the site:A OR site:B mechanism, but unfortunately I believe Google caps the number of distinct domains you can search using that trick? But maybe we could use multiple searchstacks for different EA subtopics. I think if there are search companies that actually do a good job of allowing you to create a custom search engine, that would be the ideal solution, even if it requires paying a monthly fee. If someone else wants to take initiative on this, I'd love to collaborate.

It'd be especially cool if a search engine could search Facebook group archives, since there's so much EA discussion in those.

When I search for capacity building as suggested in the post, it seems to me that the results are ok: I get about 600 results, and the first result is actually the page you mentioned. It's surprising that one cannot get the custom search engine to reproduce this. (And it's good to know that we can get around this by just generating Google queries as in the link above!) Thanks for pointing out searchstack.co, it looks very interesting!

The search box on eablogs.net will run a search restricted to all and only those domains tracked by that website. Google Custom Search, however, doesn't work well, and results will only include a tiny subset of all occurrences of a given search term (John reports a similarly frustrating experience with this service). If anyone has suggestions for alternatives, please let me know.

This is also a fantastic lifehack for searching for information on websites whose own search bar functionality is... subpar.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 32m read
 · 
Summary Immediate skin-to-skin contact (SSC) between mothers and newborns and early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) may play a significant and underappreciated role in reducing neonatal mortality. These practices are distinct in important ways from more broadly recognized (and clearly impactful) interventions like kangaroo care and exclusive breastfeeding, and they are recommended for both preterm and full-term infants. A large evidence base indicates that immediate SSC and EIBF substantially reduce neonatal mortality. Many randomized trials show that immediate SSC promotes EIBF, reduces episodes of low blood sugar, improves temperature regulation, and promotes cardiac and respiratory stability. All of these effects are linked to lower mortality, and the biological pathways between immediate SSC, EIBF, and reduced mortality are compelling. A meta-analysis of large observational studies found a 25% lower risk of mortality in infants who began breastfeeding within one hour of birth compared to initiation after one hour. These practices are attractive targets for intervention, and promoting them is effective. Immediate SSC and EIBF require no commodities, are under the direct influence of birth attendants, are time-bound to the first hour after birth, are consistent with international guidelines, and are appropriate for universal promotion. Their adoption is often low, but ceilings are demonstrably high: many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have rates of EIBF less than 30%, yet several have rates over 70%. Multiple studies find that health worker training and quality improvement activities dramatically increase rates of immediate SSC and EIBF. There do not appear to be any major actors focused specifically on promotion of universal immediate SSC and EIBF. By contrast, general breastfeeding promotion and essential newborn care training programs are relatively common. More research on cost-effectiveness is needed, but it appears promising. Limited existing
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.  Overview Background This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.  This conference has evolved since 2023: * The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel. * The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working. * This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round. We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.  Luckily, it seems like it has been working!  This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.  Outcomes On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3