I wrote the following for a Yale EA leadership strategy meeting. It's optimized for speaking, not writing, so it might read weirdly. It also has some Yale EA specific bits. People seemed to value it, and for various reasons now seems like a good time for me to post it. 

Look out the window. That church was built in 1638.

Back then, smallpox was wiping out an entire native population. Slavery was spreading to the Americas. Women had no rights at all here. When most people considered the future, they considered merely their children. Empires colonized lands that were not theirs and subjected their people. Animals: they were just tools.

We killed smallpox, but COVID kills millions. We don’t have mass slavery, but we have racism, and there is still slavery. Women have rights, but we have sexism, and in some places women still have no rights. People barely consider their great-great grandchildren. Here we treat cancer but there we do not even treat malaria. Animals: they are still just tools.

If you hate suffering, you don’t have to look far. Yes, you can look at the parents of children dead from malaria. Or you can look out the window. Suffering is far too present in our world still.

If you love happiness, you don’t have to look far. You can watch me eating beets. Or you can look out the window. Happiness is everywhere in our world.

If you care about justice, virtue, knowledge, beauty, you don’t have to look far. Look out the window. These things and their opposites are everywhere in our world.

This window is like many other windows all over the world. Outside of some, there may only appear happiness, and others, suffering. But most are more like this window, somewhere in between the extremes. Even in the happiest idyllic landscape predators devour prey. Even in the most sad place, people still admire the moon sometimes.

We have a chance to change not just this window, but every window now, and every window in the future. There are arguments for why this could be the most important century to do just that. Our ability to get things done is exploding: we have people and we have money. Pivotal technologies, like synthetic biology and AI, are being developed as we speak. What’s our role?

We are part of a ragtag team of people who try to care about everyone and everything that matters. We are the first true attempt at applied impartial good maximization under these terms. If that’s not the most important thing you could be doing, I don’t know what is.

Now, that doesn’t guarantee that any of what we do here at Yale EA matters to any of this. I think it does. I see our alumni working on stopping pandemics, researching population ethics, assisting longtermism’s greatest thought leaders, doing high-leverage global development work, and starting successful groups at dozens of other universities, and I think: this group did that. And I think we can do even more.

Now, maybe you disagree. Maybe you think what you’re personally doing is not the best use of your time. I implore you: don’t do it! If there is something else that’s the best use of your time, go do that! If it’s a YEA thing, argue for why it’s the best use of your time, and go do it. If it’s not a YEA thing, don’t feel stuck here. Go do the more impactful thing!

I don’t care about Yale Effective Altruism, not in the way I care about you or my family or my friends or even my houseplants. Those things I care about in themselves, separately from how they maximize good. YEA, I don’t. I care about what’s out the window, and that’s why I care about this group.

Think about what’s out the window, not just this window but every window, and go make it better.

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

A brilliant article, thank you.  My highlight: We are part of a ragtag team of people who try to care about everyone and everything that matters. We are the first true attempt at applied impartial good maximization.

I like the acronym, YEA things :3

Really fantastic. Feels like this could be the new 'utopia speech!'

More from TW123
227
TW123
· · 9m read
144
TW123
· · 3m read
94
TW123
· · 1m read
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
TL;DR In a sentence:  We are shifting our strategic focus to put our proactive effort towards helping people work on safely navigating the transition to a world with AGI, while keeping our existing content up. In more detail: We think it’s plausible that frontier AI companies will develop AGI by 2030. Given the significant risks involved, and the fairly limited amount of work that’s been done to reduce these risks, 80,000 Hours is adopting a new strategic approach to focus our efforts in this area.   During 2025, we are prioritising: 1. Deepening our understanding as an organisation of how to improve the chances that the development of AI goes well 2. Communicating why and how people can contribute to reducing the risks 3. Connecting our users with impactful roles in this field 4. And fostering an internal culture which helps us to achieve these goals We remain focused on impactful careers, and we plan to keep our existing written and audio content accessible to users. However, we are narrowing our focus as we think that most of the very best ways to have impact with one’s career now involve helping make the transition to a world with AGI go well.   This post goes into more detail on why we’ve updated our strategic direction, how we hope to achieve it, what we think the community implications might be, and answers some potential questions. Why we’re updating our strategic direction Since 2016, we've ranked ‘risks from artificial intelligence’ as our top pressing problem. Whilst we’ve provided research and support on how to work on reducing AI risks since that point (and before!), we’ve put in varying amounts of investment over time and between programmes. We think we should consolidate our effort and focus because:   * We think that AGI by 2030 is plausible — and this is much sooner than most of us would have predicted 5 years ago. This is far from guaranteed, but we think the view is compelling based on analysis of the current flow of inputs into AI