I think you're selling yourself short at 300-500 USD. Gemini estimates 1600-4200 USD (for 3 reviewers total), Opus 400-1000 USD (for a single reviewer spending only 4-6 hours). I endorse those estimates.

Prompt for those curious: If academic peer reviews were compensated at market rate (ie, relative to industry pay for someone with the relevant expertise), how much would it cost to have a typical academic paper reviewed?

I would have found this much more persuasive if you'd tried these services yourself and found them valuable. Without that, my median expectation is that they will do a worse job than Claude Opus 4.7.

Upvoted for recognizing a problem & responding thoughtfully.

This level of aggression towards well-intentioned funders & NGO founders is a net negative. If this kind of discourse were normalized, I think it would reduce engagement with effective charity.

In response to "I hope [the big funders are not] fucking sleeping at night":

I hope the big funders are sleeping well, getting rest, and engaged with their hobbies. Perpetual terror is not a good mindset for making high stakes decisions.

IMO add it, especially if it bothers you for a given post. Cases are often egregious even when Pangram misses it. I personally feel like these posts end up long winded & eloquent (but empty of surprising insights). I am sad to read what looks to be an effort-post, only to realize it is little more than a prompt.

Alternatively, we should get an emoji react that is just 'LLM?'

I strongly agree.

Note that even the 'highly paid' COO position at CEA is arguably substantially below market rate. A COO in industry would likely get paid double or more.

S risks are a thing. There exist fates worse than death.

'significantly reduce' could mean a lot of things. I'm answering as if this reduces absolute X-risk by 20% or more over the next 10 centuries.

The article is good, but the title's claim is too strong.

Merely knowing that Malawi is a landlocked sub-Saharran African country has huge explanatory power. The question of 'We don't know why Malawi is poorer than Rwanda' seems like a better question (which the article explores).

The pushback against AI led productivity growth also seems comparatively weak. AI is not referenced until the last paragraph, and I don't think you really engage with what AI makes possible.

This is just annoying because the article is really good, but now I want to argue about the title XD

Arguing the object point is useful, and I love to see it done when possible.

Sometimes it is also useful to call out who is making the argument.

I see the argument that AI folks go from safety to capabilities made constantly (ie, every discussion of OpenAI's origin). It seems correct but neither novel nor controversial in EA/rat spaces. EX: Habyka's last point on: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MqgwHJ93pJpaeHXs6/posts-i-don-t-have-time-to-write

Maybe we are reading different folks though. Do you have specific examples of you making conflict-of-interest arguments and folks on the forum pushing back on you to instead argue the object-level-point?