Here's are all the content releases from 80,000 Hours since our last update here 2 months ago:

  1. How exactly clean meat is created & the advances needed to get it into every supermarket, according to food scientist Marie Gibbons
  2. The careers and policies that can prevent global catastrophic biological risks, according to world-leading health security expert Dr Inglesby
  3. Why daring scientists should have to get liability insurance, according to Dr Owen Cotton-Barratt
  4. Where are the aliens? Three new resolutions to the Fermi Paradox. And how we could easily colonise the whole universe.
  5. Dr Eva Vivalt’s research suggests social science findings don’t generalize. So evidence-based development – what is it good for?
  6. Prof Allan Dafoe on trying to prepare the world for the possibility that AI will destabilise global politics
  7. Economist Bryan Caplan thinks education is mostly pointless showing off. We test the strength of his case.
  8. Oxford University’s Dr Anders Sandberg on if dictators could live forever, the annual risk of nuclear war, solar flares, and more.
  9. Politics is so much worse because we use an atrocious 18th century voting system. Aaron Hamlin has a viable plan to fix it.

Rob Wiblin also did a lengthy interview with Australian podcast The Jolly Swagmen. While a lot of it will be familiar to the kinds of people reading this forum, some things that might be new include Rob’s contrarian beliefs, the overrepresentation of Australians in EA, how 80,000 Hours’ career advice has changed, and how it might change in coming years.

In terms of downloads and listening time, the top 3 pieces were, in order, Anders Sandberg on the Fermi paradoxBryan Caplan on the case against education, and Aaron Hamlin on voting reform.

The highest rated episodes by our advisory group were, in order, Allan Dafoe on the global politics of AI, Owen Cotton-Barratt on research safety, and Marie Gibbons on the science of clean meat.

The episode with Eva Vivalt on the external validity of social science contributed to a longstanding discussion here, which prompted us to write a short summary on this forum.

The podcast is closing in on 10,000 subscribers (though imperfectly measured), and had an average of 11,000 downloads a week over this period (though not all listened to presumably).

Over the next quarter you can expect to hear from Katja Grace on AI forecasting, Amanda Askell on infinite ethics, Paul Christiano on AI safety research, Tanya Singh on operation careers in EA, James Snowden on working at GiveWell, Yew Kwang-Ng on how he invented EA decades ago, Megan Palmer on synthetic biology, and David Roodman on doing social science for Open Phil. We'll likely also start releasing our 'advanced career guide'.

Enjoy!

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Yew Kwang-Ng on how he invented EA decades ago

He's got nothing on John Wesley.

These future episodes sound great! So similar to the wishlist I had for the show in my head.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 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
Ben_West🔸
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
> Summary: We propose measuring AI performance in terms of the length of tasks AI agents can complete. We show that this metric has been consistently exponentially increasing over the past 6 years, with a doubling time of around 7 months. Extrapolating this trend predicts that, in under a decade, we will see AI agents that can independently complete a large fraction of software tasks that currently take humans days or weeks. > > The length of tasks (measured by how long they take human professionals) that generalist frontier model agents can complete autonomously with 50% reliability has been doubling approximately every 7 months for the last 6 years. The shaded region represents 95% CI calculated by hierarchical bootstrap over task families, tasks, and task attempts. > > Full paper | Github repo Blogpost; tweet thread. 
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
For immediate release: April 1, 2025 OXFORD, UK — The Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA) announced today that it will no longer identify as an "Effective Altruism" organization.  "After careful consideration, we've determined that the most effective way to have a positive impact is to deny any association with Effective Altruism," said a CEA spokesperson. "Our mission remains unchanged: to use reason and evidence to do the most good. Which coincidentally was the definition of EA." The announcement mirrors a pattern of other organizations that have grown with EA support and frameworks and eventually distanced themselves from EA. CEA's statement clarified that it will continue to use the same methodologies, maintain the same team, and pursue identical goals. "We've found that not being associated with the movement we have spent years building gives us more flexibility to do exactly what we were already doing, just with better PR," the spokesperson explained. "It's like keeping all the benefits of a community while refusing to contribute to its future development or taking responsibility for its challenges. Win-win!" In a related announcement, CEA revealed plans to rename its annual EA Global conference to "Coincidental Gathering of Like-Minded Individuals Who Mysteriously All Know Each Other But Definitely Aren't Part of Any Specific Movement Conference 2025." When asked about concerns that this trend might be pulling up the ladder for future projects that also might benefit from the infrastructure of the effective altruist community, the spokesperson adjusted their "I Heart Consequentialism" tie and replied, "Future projects? I'm sorry, but focusing on long-term movement building would be very EA of us, and as we've clearly established, we're not that anymore." Industry analysts predict that by 2026, the only entities still identifying as "EA" will be three post-rationalist bloggers, a Discord server full of undergraduate philosophy majors, and one person at