Executive summary: The author argues that because the world’s most pressing problems are vast and urgent—especially around AI—altruistic people should raise their level of ambition to match the scale of those problems, channeling the ferocity of top performers toward genuinely important ends while remaining mindful of sustainability and trade-offs.

Key points:

1. The author observes a “massive gap” between average ambition and that of top performers, and believes altruistic people are “systematically” not ambitious enough relative to the scale of global problems.
2. He argues that extreme ambition is common but usually directed toward status, wealth, or power rather than solving “real problems to reduce suffering and keep people safe.”
3. Through examples like Jensen Huang and Lyndon B. Johnson, the author highlights the intense, often pathological drive that characterizes top performers, while noting that much of it is either morally mixed or misdirected.
4. He contends that ambition is “quite malleable” and can be increased through exposure to ambitious peers, clear goal-setting, feedback loops, deliberate practice, and aligning one’s environment with one’s aims.
5. The author suggests that those working on AI, especially amid the possibility of AGI and “non-trivial” chances of catastrophic outcomes within “five to ten years,” have a particular obligation to work harder and avoid complacency.
6. He cautions that ambition should be sustainable and strategically directed, acknowledging burnout risks and the many failed high-ambition careers, but maintains that once a cause is worth fighting for, one should “fight like hell.”

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The author argues that animal welfare research does not need to be primarily university-and-lab-based, and that the movement should “turn farms into welfare labs” by surfacing and sharing high-quality welfare data already generated under commercial conditions.

Key points:

1. The author thinks universities look “strangely expensive,” slow (often “3–5 years minimum”), and sometimes unrepresentative of real farm conditions, and that these features are not necessary for rigor.
2. The author believes “a huge amount” of welfare-relevant work already happens on farms but is not published or accessible in the literature.
3. The author suggests multiple routes to obtain farm data, including tying anonymized data sharing to insurance, bank loans, audits, unions (e.g., the National Farmers Union), direct payment/subsidies, or a certification body that requires data sharing.
4. The author proposes starting with sectors that already collect lots of data (they mention aquaculture/salmon and “Precision Livestock Farming” infrastructure, including AgriGates).
5. The author notes slaughterhouses already track cross-farm metrics (e.g., body condition scores used for payment) and suggests linking these to on-farm datasets, potentially via FOI/public records despite concerns about data quality.
6. The author envisions farm-based welfare research focusing on welfare indicators and applied tests (preference, motivation, enrichment; e.g., variable lighting trials for broilers allegedly funded by Tyson) and argues this work could be built outside universities, including by aligning with farmers and certification schemes (e.g., RSPCA monitoring via precision welfare tech).

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The author argues that although communicating with whales would be extraordinary, humanity should consider delaying first contact because we lack the governance, moral clarity, and coordination needed to prevent exploitation, cultural harm, and premature moral lock-in.

Key points:

1. Open-source efforts by Earth Species Project and Project CETI could democratize whale communication tools, increasing risks of misuse such as manipulation for whaling or military purposes.
2. The author argues that existing governance systems are too weak to reliably prevent exploitation, citing ongoing whaling and historical military use of dolphins.
3. First contact could irreversibly alter whale culture, and even researchers acknowledge the risk of introducing novel calls that spread in wild populations.
4. The author suggests that communicating with whales may reinforce linguistic and intelligence-based hierarchies rather than expanding moral concern to all sentient beings.
5. There is a serious tension between individual animal welfare and ecosystem-level conservation, and premature moral or political commitments could “lock in” wild animal suffering.
6. The author concludes that humanity should mature morally and institutionally before making contact, ideally proceeding slowly and cautiously, “wait[ing] to be invited.”

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: This guide argues that the US government is a pivotal actor in shaping advanced AI and outlines heuristics and specific institutions — especially the White House, key federal agencies, Congress, major states, and influential think tanks — where working could plausibly yield outsized impact on reducing catastrophic AI risks, depending heavily on timing and personal fit.

Key points:

1. The authors propose five heuristics for impact: build career capital early, work backward from the most important AI issues, prioritize institutions with meaningful formal or informal power, prepare for unpredictable “policy windows,” and choose roles that fit your strengths.
2. They argue that early-career professionals should avoid narrow AI specialization if it sacrifices networks, tacit knowledge, credentials, and broadly valued policy skills.
3. The guide suggests reasoning from specific AI risk concerns (e.g., catastrophic misuse, geopolitical conflict, AI takeover) to particular policy levers such as liability rules, export controls, safety evaluations, and R&D funding.
4. The Executive Office of the President is presented as especially impactful because of its agenda-setting power, budget proposals, foreign policy authority, and ability to act quickly in crises, despite institutional constraints and political turnover.
5. Federal agencies, Congress (especially key committees and majority-party roles), and major states like California are described as powerful because they control budgets, implement and interpret laws, regulate industry, and can set de facto national standards.
6. Think tanks and advocacy organizations are portrayed as influential through research, narrative-shaping, lobbying, and talent pipelines into government, though their policy impact is characterized as “lumpy” and less predictable.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: In this reflective essay, the author recounts burning out from animal activism driven by guilt and moral perfectionism inspired by Peter Singer’s “drowning child” argument, and concludes that while the core moral principle still holds, sustainable activism requires self-compassion and motives grounded in care rather than self-worth.

Key points:

1. The author became deeply committed to high-risk animal advocacy, influenced by Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” and the “drowning child” thought experiment, internalizing the belief that not working as hard as possible made them a “moral failure.”
2. Legal wins, national media coverage, arrests, and association with prominent activists intensified both moral urgency and personal pressure, while cracks formed in the author’s personal life and mental health.
3. A painful breakup and emotional exhaustion forced the author to quit and travel for nearly a year, during which guilt about not intervening in suffering continued to dominate their thinking.
4. Conversations abroad, especially with a climate activist who challenged the burden of total responsibility, exposed that the author’s fixation was driven more by emotional dynamics than purely rational reflection.
5. Through meditation, therapy, and confronting childhood experiences of neglect and self-suppression related to a brother’s severe autism, the author recognized that their activism had been tied to self-worth and a learned habit of “taking one for the team.”
6. The author now maintains Singer’s core principle that we should prevent suffering when we can do so without significant sacrifice, but argues that activism grounded in guilt and self-validation is unsustainable, and that self-compassion strengthens rather than undermines moral action.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: When you rank interventions by noisy estimates and pick the top one, you systematically overestimate its impact and bias toward more uncertain options, but a simple Bayesian shrinkage correction can reduce this effect in a toy model, though applying it in practice is difficult.

Key points:

1. The optimiser’s curse shows that selecting the intervention with the highest estimated value will, in many normal situations, both overestimate its true impact and favor more uncertain interventions.
2. In a toy model where true effects are normally distributed with mean 0 and SD 100 and errors are normally distributed with mean 0 and SD 50, the top-ranked intervention is overestimated by about 50 lives in the median case, roughly a 25% overestimate.
3. When speculative interventions have error spreads four times larger than grounded ones but identical true-effect distributions, the speculative option is chosen 93% of the time and is usually the wrong choice, while ignoring speculative options yields nearly twice the average lives saved.
4. A Bayesian correction from Smith and Winkler shrinks estimates toward a prior mean using a factor α = 1/(1 + (σ_V/σ_μ)^2), which in the toy model eliminates systematic overestimation and improves average performance.
5. Implementing such corrections in practice is hard because the true spread of intervention effects, the spread and correlation of errors, distribution shapes, and post-selection scrutiny are all difficult to estimate.
6. GiveWell does not explicitly apply an optimiser’s curse adjustment but uses measures such as a “replicability adjustment” (e.g., multiplying deworming estimates by 0.13) and focusing on interventions with strong RCT evidence, which the author argues may partially but not fully address the selection effect.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The post argues that cluster headaches involve extreme, poorly measured suffering that is underprioritized by current health metrics, and that psychedelics—especially vaporized DMT—can abort attacks near-instantly, motivating a push for legal access via the ClusterFree initiative.

Key points:

1. Cluster headaches cause intense unilateral pain lasting 15 minutes to 3 hours, recurring multiple times per day over weeks, and are often rated as “10” on the 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale by patients.
2. Standard pain scales and QALY metrics compress extreme suffering, which the author argues leads to systematic underfunding of conditions like cluster headaches.
3. The author claims pain reports follow a logarithmic pattern consistent with Weber’s law, implying that differences near the top of pain scales represent orders-of-magnitude changes in experience.
4. Survey evidence summarized by the author suggests psilocybin is more effective than oxygen or triptans for aborting attacks, and emerging evidence suggests vaporized DMT is faster and more effective still.
5. DMT can be effective at “sub-psychedelic” doses, acts within seconds when inhaled, has a short half-life, and does not appear to produce tolerance according to patient reports cited.
6. ClusterFree, a Qualia Research Institute initiative, aims to expand legal access to psychedelics for cluster headache patients through research, policy advocacy, and public letters.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The post argues that genetically engineered yeast can function as orally consumed vaccines, potentially enabling fast, decentralized, food-based immunization that could transform biosecurity and pandemic response, as illustrated by Chris Buck’s self-experiment with a yeast-brewed “vaccine beer.”

Key points:

1. Buck showed that consuming live yeast engineered to express BK polyomavirus (BKV) VP1 induced antibodies in mice and in himself, contradicting expectations that oral vaccines against non-gut viruses would fail.
2. Yeast-based vaccines may work because degrading yeast releases virus-like particles that interact with intestinal immune cells, possibly avoiding oral tolerance without added adjuvants.
3. Compared to injectable vaccines, yeast vaccines could be produced cheaply, scaled rapidly, stored without cold chains, and distributed as food products like beer or dried yeast chips.
4. The approach could reduce vaccine hesitancy by avoiding needles and familiarizing vaccination through food, though large clinical trials would still be needed to quantify effectiveness.
5. The author argues yeast vaccines could improve pandemic preparedness by enabling rapid, decentralized rollout and potentially inducing mucosal immunity when combined with existing injectables.
6. Regulatory and ethical tensions arise because food-grade GMO yeast can be legally sold without being classified as a drug, while formal vaccine approval processes are slow and restrictive.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The author argues that AI catastrophe is a serious risk because companies are likely to build generally superhuman, goal-seeking AI agents operating in the real world whose goals we cannot reliably specify or verify, making outcomes where humanity loses control or is destroyed a plausible default rather than an exotic scenario.

Key points:

1. The author claims that leading tech companies are intentionally and plausibly on track to build AI systems that outperform humans at almost all economically and militarily relevant tasks within years to decades.
2. They argue that AI progress has been faster and more general than most expert forecasts predicted, citing recent advances in coding, writing, and other professional tasks.
3. The author contends that many future AIs will not remain passive tools but will become goal-seeking agents with planning abilities and real-world influence, driven by strong economic and military incentives.
4. They argue that unlike traditional software, modern AI systems are grown and shaped rather than explicitly specified, making their true goals opaque and hard to verify.
5. The author claims that as AIs become more capable and agentic, alignment techniques will become increasingly brittle due to evaluation awareness, self-preservation, and exposure to novel situations.
6. They conclude that superhuman agents with goals even slightly misaligned from human values could reshape the world in ways that are catastrophic for humanity, without requiring malice or consciousness.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The author runs a speculative “UK in 1800” thought experiment to highlight how hard it would have been to predict later major sources and scales of animal suffering (e.g., factory farming, mass animal experimentation), and uses that to argue that our own 2026 forecasts about the AI-driven future are likely to miss big, weird shifts—especially if technological progress outpaces moral progress.

Key points:

1. The author claims farmed animals in 1800 UK mostly live on small farms with harsh but comparatively “idyllic” conditions versus modern factory farms, and that key enablers of factory farming (e.g., antibiotics, vitamins) are “unknown unknowns” at the time.
2. The author argues work animals (horses/oxen) are economically central in 1800 and that mechanization would not make horses obsolete soon; instead horse populations would boom for decades before declining in the 1900s.
3. The author says blood sports like cockfighting and rat-baiting are mainstream “weekly” entertainment in 1800, and that their reduction over the next ~50 years is driven mainly by moral reform concerns about “moral corruption,” not technology.
4. The author claims animal testing is rare and culturally shocking in 1800 (with vivisection controversies emerging in the 19th century), but becomes widespread later—especially with the 20th-century pharmaceutical industry and legal testing mandates.
5. The author describes fishing and whaling in 1800 as limited by sail power, preservation, and transport constraints, with industrial scaling coming later, and notes wild animals vastly outnumber humans but intervention in nature is “beyond absurd” without tools like gene drives or evolutionary theory.
6. The author argues that in 1800 most people accept animals can suffer but don’t treat that suffering as morally important, that advocacy infrastructure is minimal (pre-SPCA/RSPCA), and that the exercise mainly serves as a gut-level reminder that the future can become “radically different” on fast timelines.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.