Hide table of contents

Happy April Fools’ Day! It’s time to put your strategic thinking to the test in The EA University Groups' Prisoner’s Dilemma!

How It Works

If you’re a member or organiser of an EA university group (or the CEA University Groups Team), then you’re eligible to play. Your group faces one big decision: Cooperate or Defect?

  • Every player will use this form to vote on whether their group should cooperate or defect.
  • Your group’s position will be decided by majority vote. If your group has just as many cooperators as defectors, then your group will cooperate.
  • Voting closes at midnight tonight.
  • Results will be announced tomorrow.

The Prizes

The Grand Prize 

  • The coveted Golden Spoon Trophy, engraved with the words "HUNGRY FOR IMPACT"

Bonus Prizes

  • A T-shirt that reads "i cooperated/ defected in the prisoner's dilemma and all i got was this lousy t-shirt"
  • Socks embroidered with the EA logo
  • An impact calculator (calculates your real life-time impact[1])
  • Sheldon the Shrimp (a Jellycat plush)
  • EA books
  • Candy Kittens

 

The Rules & Prize Conditions

OutcomeWhat Happens
All Groups CooperateEvery single person who voted to cooperate wins a mystery prize, but no one wins the Golden Spoon Trophy or any of the bonus prizes
One Group Defects, All Other Groups CooperateThe one defecting team wins ALL of the prizes (the Golden Spoon Trophy and all of the bonus prizes). Groups that cooperated and individual cooperators get nothing.
Less than 50% of Groups DefectBonus prizes are awarded to some cooperators, but no one wins the Golden Spoon Trophy. Groups that defected and individual defectors get nothing
50-75% of Groups DefectBonus prizes are awarded to some defectors, and the group with the most daring defection wins the Golden Spoon Trophy. Groups that cooperated and individual cooperators get nothing.
Over 75% of Groups DefectNo one wins anything

You may be wondering - when prizes are only awarded to some defectors or cooperators, how do I decide who gets them? The answer: I might distribute them randomly… or I might reward groups that impress me with their coordination and strategy. (There might even be secret prizes your group can unlock by doing this.)
 

Will You Cooperate or Defect?

Submit your vote here by midnight tonight! Share your strategies, form alliances (or betray them), and speculate on what other groups might do. 

Feel free to ask any clarifying questions in the comments! :)

May the best group win! 

  1. ^

    Yeah, no it doesn't.

Comments7


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I think you get the prize for the first April Fools post of 2025! Here is a cookie: 🍪

is that cookie organic, pesticide free, marginally more impactful than a slice of cake, distributed equally, animal cruelty free and 10% of crumbs donated to impactful causes? /joking :)

May the best group win! 

It sure sounds like it :)

Well this is interesting 😂😂

I defected! Everyone, if you want to lose, choose DEFECT

On behalf of EA Manchester, I truly appreciate it.

I'm cooperating :) Unilateralist curse won't take me down /joking

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
 ·  · 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
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
In our recent strategy retreat, the GWWC Leadership Team recognised that by spreading our limited resources across too many projects, we are unable to deliver the level of excellence and impact that our mission demands. True to our value of being mission accountable, we've therefore made the difficult but necessary decision to discontinue a total of 10 initiatives. By focusing our energy on fewer, more strategically aligned initiatives, we think we’ll be more likely to ultimately achieve our Big Hairy Audacious Goal of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually. (See our 2025 strategy.) We’d like to be transparent about the choices we made, both to hold ourselves accountable and so other organisations can take the gaps we leave into account when planning their work. As such, this post aims to: * Inform the broader EA community about changes to projects & highlight opportunities to carry these projects forward * Provide timelines for project transitions * Explain our rationale for discontinuing certain initiatives What’s changing  We've identified 10 initiatives[1] to wind down or transition. These are: * GWWC Canada * Effective Altruism Australia funding partnership * GWWC Groups * Giving Games * Charity Elections * Effective Giving Meta evaluation and grantmaking * The Donor Lottery * Translations * Hosted Funds * New licensing of the GWWC brand  Each of these is detailed in the sections below, with timelines and transition plans where applicable. How this is relevant to you  We still believe in the impact potential of many of these projects. Our decision doesn’t necessarily reflect their lack of value, but rather our need to focus at this juncture of GWWC's development.  Thus, we are actively looking for organisations and individuals interested in taking on some of these projects. If that’s you, please do reach out: see each project's section for specific contact details. Thank you for your continued support as we