Quick takes

Set topic
Frontpage
Global health
Animal welfare
Existential risk
Biosecurity & pandemics
12 more

Some hope for you if you're an EA with a chronic illness.

I’ve been reading the biographies of moral heroes, and I’d guess ~50% of them struggled with ongoing health issues.

Being sick sucks, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be able to do a ton of good

  • Florence Nightingale
  • Benjamin Franklin
  • William Wilberforce
  • Alexander Hamilton
  • Helen Keller

It’s not everybody, but it’s a surprising percentage of them.

I myself struggle with a chronic mystery ailment and I find it inspiring to hear about all of these people who still managed to do great things, even though... (read more)

Another example is Lincoln, who suffered severe depression throughout his life. Lincoln's Melancholy is a good book about it.

4
John Salter
Was there anything in the book that you found especially helpful?

Is it harmful to keep your money in index funds? Let's take a random index fund like FTSE Global All Cap Index Fund. If we look at the companies it actually invests in, a lot of them are the same companies that work towards advancing the AI. 

It would be ironic for some of us to be in favour of pausing AI and invest money into it at the same time. I used to keep some of my money in such funds because that was always the financial advice for regular folk like me who don't know/think much about investments. But now I don't know what to do because this fe... (read more)

Showing 3 of 6 replies (Click to show all)
2
MichaelDickens
No strong opinion on whether it's a good idea, but here are some options to avoid AI stocks: * Buy a global ex-US fund, because AI stocks are mostly US companies * If you also want to avoid AI companies in China and Korea, you could buy a Europe index * If you want US funds, there are sector ETFs such as the ones from SPDR, you could buy all of them except the tech sector ETF. * If you are okay with more complexity, you could buy a broad index fund while also shorting an AI fund (AGIX AIS, etc.). Or you could short a NASDAQ index fund, which overweights AI stocks and which might be cheaper to short-sell. FWIW I personally don't intentionally invest in AI stocks, but I don't actively avoid them, either.
2
Charlie_Guthmann
Fair enough, FWIW I mostly agree and glad you brought it up. I have most of my money in index funds and feel like that's better than having it all in ai stocks but this will prompt me to give it some more consideration.

AI safety needs people everywhere but quickly stated, current talent bottlenecks to me look like:

-- Founders

-- Grantmakers

-- (technical) Research leads 

-- Policy entrepreneurs and implementors (which includes a lot of technical work)

-- bets in international coordination and/or cooperation

-- All manner of supporting talent -- program leads, ops proper, public outreach, content creators, comms

 

Most sought-after qualities for talent are:

-- context, mission alignment, domain understanding, sophisticated views on AI strategy and threat modelling etc.

-- "good ju... (read more)

The "Desperate" AI Safety Talent Bottleneck is deeply misleading. Please.stop.

I worked at Google.

Google does not tell applicants that there is a talent bottleneck and they are desperately hiring. They say "we're cool, join us!" 

I didn't get into Harvard. 

Harvard does not tell applicants that they are desperately seeking students. I am not misled. 

I've gotten rejected from countless AI Safety organizations.

AI Safety tells applicants - we are in desperate need of talent (operators/generalists)! Please join us! 

I've coached 70+ aspiring career pivoters on nav... (read more)

I'm not a student, but I'm surprised UC Law SF(formerly UC Hastings) doesn't have an EA club or AI safety club. Seems like an interesting spot for people interested in AI governance work that could be well-served by UC Berkeley or Stanford pitching people to join their club meetings.  

According to people I know who have personally seen the flyers, there are flyers offering to pay people to protest a recent Sam Altman appearance (unclear why they're mad at Sam Altman, there are many reasons why they might be mad at him). However, the protest was cancelled because of ???. https://www.wunc.org/education/2026-09-02/protest-chapel-hill-unc-g20-innovation-technology-sam-altman-elon-musk-artificial-intelligence gives a bit of coverage of the story.

If this comes from the EA side of things, people should know that the optics of "paid protests" a... (read more)

NB -- this is almost entirely AI generated, with some back and forth prompts and corrections

I'm sharing a steelman against a live assumption in Bay/EA/AIS circles: that large AI-lab-adjacent philanthropy is likely to arrive soon enough, and in a sufficiently usable form, that organizations should plan around it.

https://uj-ai-wealth-philanthropy-steelman.netlify.app/

The stronger skeptical case is that IPOs, valuations, pledges, DAFs, and foundation stakes are several gates away from fast, flexible, AIS/EA-directed grants.

The interactive model lets readers v

... (read more)
Showing 3 of 10 replies (Click to show all)

Fortnightly AI-wealth tracker — 31 August 2026

  • AIS/EA: median modeled end-2027 disbursement $0.83B; 80% model interval $0.16B–$3.0B. Review status: reviewed; unchanged. Named public AI-linked commitments tracked: $0.80B. Tracker and sources.
  • Global health and development: median $0.53B; 80% model interval $0.15B–$2.8B. Review status: reviewed; unchanged. Named public GH&D commitments tracked: $0.25B. GH&D tracker and sources.

Latest news: Anthropic opens a $5M wellbeing-evaluations grant program. The program combines direct funding with model access a... (read more)

4
MichaelDickens
I submitted an estimate
2
MichaelDickens
Biggest (easily-fixable) outstanding issue is I still don't think it makes sense to model deployment by end-2026 because the IPO lockup probably won't have ended by then.

I'm early-ish in the application pipeline for a non-EA job and they're asking me to do a 20-HOUR UNPAID work test where they explicitly want to own and use the product of my "work test" ....

besides this obviously being really cringey and maybe illegal (?) it was a good reminder for me of how unpaid work tests are just a massive hinderance to potential applicants - who the heck has 20 hours of unpaid work to donate unless they're unemployed?

I believe there is immense untapped potential in narrative change through the applications of "short-form video marketing tactics" to the Animal Welfare movement. 

What do I mean by "short form video marketing tactics". 

Specifically I mean clipping campaigns the likes of which have helped launched the career of some of the 2020's most popular musicians including Sombr, Alex Warren, Geese, and Oklou. 

Clipping campaigns essentially pay people on a per view basis for tiktok, instagram reel, and youtube shorts. Anyone can create a clipping campaign and usually ... (read more)

I'm surprised there isn't much focus on human rights / intl law efforts in the EA community. There obviously are policy advocacy efforts, but I haven't seen any in this realm. 

Why is that? Is this a conscious choice, or is it incidental? 

2
akash 🔸
They are not neglected problems compared to, say, direct cash transfers or farm animal welfare.

Ah interesting, thanks. 

TLDR: I've updated towards pausing further AI development indefinitely.

When Scott Alexander proposed regulating AI like clinical drugs, many (including myself) balked at this given the sclerosis of FDA or related bodies. Yet HF updates me towards treating frontier AIs as nuclear. There onerous regulation is likely good.

In general, most bureaucratised regulatory regimes are bad. In some cases, like nuclear technology or ensuring planes are safe to fly on, they're welfare improving. It's clear that AI belongs in the latter category.

Also trace inversion is a ... (read more)

I think that there can be strategies that make AI the more safer the more capable it becomes. There was a time when I became safer when I became more capable as I thought, reflected and kept certain actions off limits. There can be core and basic stratgies to be used for making AI safer the more capable it becomes and now we are going in the opposite direction with about 50% probabality. 

There must be some humans that atleast for a point of time became safer the more capable they became and their strategies whichever are compatiable for AI can be used. Ins... (read more)

How impactful would it be to copies of @Garrison's new book Obsolete to elected officials who belong to its political target audience (Dems, particularly left ones) and might not have been responsive to traditional x-risk-centric comms (e.g. IABIED)?

There's an old Facebook group, New EA hub search and planning, that might be worth reviving in light of the incresed amount of funding coming into the space.

Even with more availability of funding, many talented folks won't get funded or will only recieve small amounts. Establishing new hubs that provide an easier entry-way to being surrounded by community seems like potentially quite high value. After all, it takes a village to raise an EA and being surrounded by others is an accelerator to impact.

What's a good heuristic for knowing if you're being self-sacrificial to the point of negative returns for the thing you're being self-sacrificial for? I'm interested in things people have actually used and found to work in practice, either for themselves or others.

I've never been able to find a heuristic for this exactly. We have made many decisions which we don't love to call sacrifice, in fact many of them brought deep satisfaction and connection. These were made to live in better solidarity and community with those around us. For example for us this involved cooking on a charcoal stove, not having running water inside and eating a lot of local food which is often great but I don't always love.

Almost all of these were made at the cost of efficiency in our work to some extent. Life without a gas stove and running w... (read more)

After the initial experiment period, we've decided to keep the featured page.

One of the key graphs in making this decision is below:
 

Now that the featured page is likely to stick around long term, I'd like to start collecting ideas for V2[1]. Do you use the page? Do you pointedly not use the page? I'd love to get any and all feedback, in the comments here, or via this form

Please share small things like aesthetic tweaks as well as larger issues such as a disagreement on the kind of posts that get featured, or how featuring is done. Happy to answer questio... (read more)

I'm quite a visual thinker, so I wanted to say *that the pictures on the featured page really help to draw me in!

4
abrahamrowe
I’ve really stopped engaging with the EA Forum as much since the change, if helpful feedback. I’m not sure what to do about this, but I’ve found I no longer have a clear sense of “where conversation is actively happening”, and while I guess I can tell from the tab names if I’m in New or Featured, in reality I don’t pay enough attention and miss a lot of things. E.g. today I realized there was a post that didn’t get much attention that I never noticed that was relevant to me a week ago, and generally, I have a sense of “I can’t really tell what’s recent conversation” anymore, so I’ve stopped looking at the Forum as much because I don’t have a clear sense that I’ll see new and interesting things.  I see the upside of the change, but personally have found it hard to navigate the site since the change in a way that’s decreased my engagement.  Thanks for all you do to experiment and try to make it better! Appreciate how much you all do here to make the Forum useful!
4
Toby Tremlett🔹
Thanks Abraham, that's good to know! FWIW the new & upvoted page is just the Forum frontpage as it was before, so if you just ignore the featured page, your forum experience shouldn't change at all.  Also we did feature that post - so if you check the featured page you'd have been more likely to see it overall than previously (when something niche but impactful like that was likely to get low karma and sink off the frontpage pretty quick). 

Mental health is one of the most widespread, impactable, yet neglected global health issues of our time. Even knowing mental health conditions are generally under-reported and/ or misrepresented, evidence still shows widespread effects of mental wellbeing on physical health, life satisfaction, and productivity, however it has still not taken off as a major cause area in many EA organizations I have talked to. Why is this? 

Showing 3 of 8 replies (Click to show all)
5
MichaelPlant
Thanks for mentioning our work in HLI here @huw. I/we are not so active on the forum these days, so you beat us to it. But yes, @madeleine_foley, HLI really got started, now 7 years ago, because we thought that the standard economist approach of focusing on just health and wealth was not going a good job of capturing what people's lives are like on the inside. We've been pioneering wellbeing cost-effectiveness analysis and a metric called WELLBYs (wellbeing years) to see what the priorities are if you 'take happiness seriously'. (Oddly, we were the first team to do wellbeing ROI, but now quite a few others, including the UK and NZ Treasuries, use the same method, although not because of us). We concluded that mental health is a neglected priority, and have been recommended charities working on it for the last few years, and advocating for it more broadly. Huw's organisation, Kaya Guides, is one we're very excited about, and he's right that global human happiness and mental health is an emergent part of the wider cause area of 'global health and wellbeing', and just wasn't part of the conversation in effective altruism before.

Thanks @MichaelPlant ! I actually recently connected with Joel from your team and am very interested in leveraging some of your work to influence priorities in my current role. I’m eager to continue talking about mental health and wellbeing in the EA space and hoping to get more involved with HLI or the work you are doing on a volunteer basis!

1
Madeleine_Foley
Interesting take @alesziegler ! I do believe it is true that too much of any one thing is usually bad, and also believe that people who are not trained/ underqualified taking on mental health is counterproductive. I think people take on these roles or use clinical language that should not be applied to what they are doing precisely because they cannot get the credible help they need and are trying to fill that void. Mental health is extremely subjective and therefore interventions may look like community connection or involvement in sports rather than clinical therapy.  I am also highly skeptical of the legitimacy of Schrier’s claims and her choice in very carefully selected stastistics as evidence. For ecample, contrary to some of Shier’s claims, evidence-based school-based emotional programs have had profound impact, especially on marginalized populations (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773233924000032). Maybe my thoughts on this is best summed up by saying, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water”? 

[central europe] We are organising the largest AI-safety march (at least in central europe) to date at Prague, starting at 15:00 on 31st August. We have got parlimentary support as well as very supportive police, allowing us to take the preffered route. We want as many people to come - fell free to spread information about the event outside EA as much as possible, especially if you have friends living near Prague who may come. If you want closer info/visual materials or help us with organisation, you can get in contact with czech PauseAI on whatsapp.

Luma e... (read more)

I wrote this in a post, but it might be a better quick take: Would you describe charities within GCR as "super-effective?" They may or may not be good long-term bets, but clearly the outcomes are very uncertain & hard to trace. Whereas GHD + Animal Welfare are probably much more trackable. 

 

I'm asking because I saw on GivingMultiplier.org that they were marketing GCR charities as "highly effective," and that gave me pause. 

Showing 3 of 6 replies (Click to show all)
1
Margaritaville
Well, the lack of consensus on GCR's efficacy is exactly the thing I'm pointing out. A highly untraceable intervention should not be called "super effective" ... I think that risks undermining their credibility. "Potentially a good long-term bet" is very, very different from "super-effective, expert-vetted."  I was just wondering if there was something I was missing about the proven efficacy of GCR interventions. It sounds like I'm not...in which case, I think it's a really bad idea for GivingMultiplier to pass those off like they have the proven efficacy of GHD interventions. It feels misleading, and I'm more "EA-friendly" than the average person they're probably targeting.  And I have no strong view on GCR interventions. Seems like they'd be hard to prove traceability/impact, but I haven't spend much time thinking about it. 
1
Evan LaForge
I think there's multiple approaches they could take: 1. Describe all charities as "super-effective", a term that has presumably been tested directly and/or indirectly to maximize marketability 2. Use some other term that applies precisely to all charities but is less effective at drawing donations 3. Make a distinction between (e.g.) GiveWell and GCR work 4. Not include GCR in their portfolio I can see an argument for 4 (i.e. start new donors with more straightforward work). Also, if GCR work is too speculative to justify pursuing, then 4 is clearly the best option. However, if you believe that GCR work is sufficiently well-justified (as Giving Multiplier seems to), I do think 1 > 2 and 3. 2 and 3 decrease the effectiveness of the organization for the sake of precision. Their FAQ on the home page addresses how they defer to other actors, who make decisions based on the best available evidence. Anyone unsatisfied by that answer has links to Founders Pledge and can learn more about their methodology there. Super-effective is a marketing label, not a scientific one. They define it reasonably, and I don't think it would come across as dishonest or misleading to someone without EA context.

Fair enough. I have no doubt that they picked the term for marketing purposes. But I'm sure you're right that they would defend it as "highest EV," as opposed to "rigorously studied causal chain." 

What if exact copies don't matter but future experiences still do?

I think an ethics resulting from the following two premises is worth exploring:

P1: The total moral value of subjectively indistinguishable observer-moments doesn't scale with the number of copies, i.e. they sum to a constant value.

  • This is because subjectively indistinguishable observer-moments, in some sense, happen to the same "someone". One could think of themselves as all their copies. N observer-moments that are subjectively indistinguishable aren't felt N times by that same "someone". O
... (read more)

Currently working on a full post on this. Tentatively calling it "Flow ethics", though "Markovian ethics" would sounder cooler... DM me if interested.

1
Tim Chan
In the case of finite trajectories, the objective function can be the sum of value functions across all states, with each state weighted equally - where states are types of observer-moments, and each state's value function is its immediate valence plus the expected value of its continuations. This is total utilitarianism with two modifications. 1) aggregate over types instead of tokens, and 2) sum trajectory welfare instead of immediate welfare.
Load more