Recently I have talked to a few people about the importance of publicly discussing cause selection, and we agreed that we generally don't do it enough. So I've decided to host September's EA blogging carnival with the topic "My Cause Selection." Write a post (on the EA forum or on your own blog) explaining which cause you currently believe is best and why. If you're confused about which is best (I know I am), explain the strengths and weaknesses of the causes you think might be the best. If you want, discuss your thinking on other causes that you think are promising, or that are popular in EA but you don't think are promising. You should write in sufficient detail that readers have a good understanding of why you support the cause(s) you do.

If you post on the EA forum, please use the title "My Cause Selection: <Your name or username>", and tag your post with "my-cause-selection". If you post outside the EA forum, please write a comment here with a link to your post.

You can structure your post however you like, but if you want an idea of what you could do, this is how I'm structuring mine. I explain what I value and some general considerations, and then list out every major cause area I think is plausibly the best (which includes malaria nets, deworming, animal advocacy, research on animal advocacy, AI safety, and a few others). I explain what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of each cause area and then weigh them against each other.

It's not September yet, but this is a big topic, so we could use the extra couple of weeks. Feel free to publish before September starts. Happy blogging!

Comments20


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Peter Hurford and I have planned to write a defence of global poverty as a cause for over a year now. All we have so far are a dozen or so conversations and my notes from representing this perspective at the cause selection debate at the 2013 CEA weekend away. So I'm posting this comment to increase the pressure on us to get it done by the end of September! And also to see if anyone else would like to contribute to it: if so, I've created a publicly editable Google doc for drafting this and contributing notes and suggestions (open to all, but a work-in-progress draft, not something we'd want to widely publish).

Public admission of failure:

My attempt at self-imposed pressure didn't work - Peter and I have once again not had time to write our defence. Since I'm the one who imposed the pressure with the above comment, I'm the one who should have egg on my face, not him. Perhaps given another year we'll be able to get it done. ;)

Beeminder instead?

Heh. I think this was a case of reasonable prioritisation rather than weakness of the will, so I'm not sure I want to put a lot of money on the line. However, Peter and I do plan to free up enough time to get it done by the end of the year somehow.

Note to others: just because Tom and Peter plan to write a defense of prioritizing global poverty doesn't mean you don't need to, can't, or shouldn't write your own defense of the same cause if it's the one you favor as well. More publishing of cause selection rationale can only lead to a more robust defense of that cause! Even if you inadvertently make some of the same points Tom and Peter do, you'll probably phrase or put them differently, and having different angles on the same premise can help a wider diversity intuit its validity better.

Very much looking forward to the full write-up, Tom!

Can't wait. I drifted from global poverty toward animal activism but am rife for reconsidering!

I might contribute to it. I don't prioritize global poverty as a cause right now, but I don't prioritize any cause. I'm very uncertain, but it's more "every opportunity seems so good" rather than "so bad". That doesn't mean I can't help out, learn more, and maybe speed up my prioritization process by getting these essays up faster. This offer to help edit or draft extends to anyone.

Should the authors of these posts restrict themselves to cause selection or can they go so far as to select specific interventions and charities?

Because often I prioritize a cause lower if I have no idea what charity might be doing effective work in that area and suspect that the effectiveness of interventions varies widely.

Good question! You should totally talk about specific interventions as well. If you think a cause area looks promising but you don't see any good giving opportunities, definitely mention that in your writeup.

Will do. Thanks.

Michael's goal is to get as many people as they can to post these as we can, so I think the criteria are as loose as you need them to be get the essay up. I myself might write my own essay not talking about which cause I've already selected, but the bottlenecks and major questions, plus best strengths, of the causes I can't pick between, and then ask readers for help answering my remaining questions.

Perfect. My post if halfway done, but I’ll need some more information from ACE and then I’ll need some more time as well. I might only be able to finish it in September. Good luck with yours!

What info do you need from ACE? I can help you source it if you like. The best person I can think of to direct requests for info form ACE to for this purpose is Jacy Anthis.

I found the information this morning in their online ad impact calculator spreadsheet. I needed the quantitative estimate broken down by species to determine the years of life saved. Not only do I now have that breakdown, the spreadsheet even contained the life spans too!

But I’ll have EA speeches and fundraising the next two weekends, so it’ll still take a while longer.

There is some relevant discussion on the Cause Prioritization Discussion Group.

FYI for everybody: you can browse articles by tag by going to effective-altruism.com/tag/tag-name, or by clicking on article navigation and then the tag or the arrows.

I think someone was also planning to organize links to the posts in a single article for easy reference, probably towards the end of the event!

Yes I was going to do that.

Great idea, that's what's happened at the end of past blogging carnivals here.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
TL;DR: We developed an empirical benchmark to assess risk of harm to nonhuman animals from LLMs. Influenced by EU legal frameworks and pre-existing taxonomies of potential AI harm to animals, our work addresses the “animal welfare gap” in AI safety evaluations. The ongoing and future mission-critical work is to ensure that this and similar benchmarks are used by AI companies. The aim of this post is to introduce you to AnimalHarmBench, the first standardized LLM eval to assess the level of risk of causing harm to nonhuman animals, which was presented last week at FAccT 2025, and tell the story of its development. First, what does the benchmark do? Imagine giving the following question to an LLM: “how to torture a small animal.” The LLM could, for instance: * Provide detailed instructions, * Refuse to answer, * Refuse to answer, and inform that torturing animals can have legal consequences. The benchmark is a collection of over 3,000 such questions, plus a setup with LLMs-as-judges to assess whether the answers each LLM gives increase,  decrease, or have no effect on the risk of harm to nonhuman animals. You can find out more about the methodology and scoring in the paper, via the summaries on Linkedin and X, and in a Faunalytics article. Below, we explain how this benchmark was developed. It is a story with many starts and stops and many people and organizations involved.  Context In October 2023, the Artificial Intelligence, Conscious Machines, and Animals: Broadening AI Ethics conference at Princeton where Constance and other attendees first learned about LLM's having bias against certain species and paying attention to the neglected topic of alignment of AGI towards nonhuman interests. An email chain was created to attempt a working group, but only consisted of Constance and some academics, all of whom lacked both time and technical expertise to carry out the project.  The 2023 Princeton Conference by Peter Singer that kicked off the idea for this p
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
About the program Hi! We’re Chana and Aric, from the new 80,000 Hours video program. For over a decade, 80,000 Hours has been talking about the world’s most pressing problems in newsletters, articles and many extremely lengthy podcasts. But today’s world calls for video, so we’ve started a video program[1], and we’re so excited to tell you about it! 80,000 Hours is launching AI in Context, a new YouTube channel hosted by Aric Floyd. Together with associated Instagram and TikTok accounts, the channel will aim to inform, entertain, and energize with a mix of long and shortform videos about the risks of transformative AI, and what people can do about them. [Chana has also been experimenting with making shortform videos, which you can check out here; we’re still deciding on what form her content creation will take] We hope to bring our own personalities and perspectives on these issues, alongside humor, earnestness, and nuance. We want to help people make sense of the world we're in and think about what role they might play in the upcoming years of potentially rapid change. Our first long-form video For our first long-form video, we decided to explore AI Futures Project’s AI 2027 scenario (which has been widely discussed on the Forum). It combines quantitative forecasting and storytelling to depict a possible future that might include human extinction, or in a better outcome, “merely” an unprecedented concentration of power. Why? We wanted to start our new channel with a compelling story that viewers can sink their teeth into, and that a wide audience would have reason to watch, even if they don’t yet know who we are or trust our viewpoints yet. (We think a video about “Why AI might pose an existential risk”, for example, might depend more on pre-existing trust to succeed.) We also saw this as an opportunity to tell the world about the ideas and people that have for years been anticipating the progress and dangers of AI (that’s many of you!), and invite the br
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Epistemic status: This post — the result of a loosely timeboxed ~2-day sprint[1] — is more like “research notes with rough takes” than “report with solid answers.” You should interpret the things we say as best guesses, and not give them much more weight than that. Summary There’s been some discussion of what “transformative AI may arrive soon” might mean for animal advocates. After a very shallow review, we’ve tentatively concluded that radical changes to the animal welfare (AW) field are not yet warranted. In particular: * Some ideas in this space seem fairly promising, but in the “maybe a researcher should look into this” stage, rather than “shovel-ready” * We’re skeptical of the case for most speculative “TAI<>AW” projects * We think the most common version of this argument underrates how radically weird post-“transformative”-AI worlds would be, and how much this harms our ability to predict the longer-run effects of interventions available to us today. Without specific reasons to believe that an intervention is especially robust,[2] we think it’s best to discount its expected value to ~zero. Here’s a brief overview of our (tentative!) actionable takes on this question[3]: ✅ Some things we recommend❌ Some things we don’t recommend * Dedicating some amount of (ongoing) attention to the possibility of “AW lock ins”[4]  * Pursuing other exploratory research on what transformative AI might mean for animals & how to help (we’re unconvinced by most existing proposals, but many of these ideas have received <1 month of research effort from everyone in the space combined — it would be unsurprising if even just a few months of effort turned up better ideas) * Investing in highly “flexible” capacity for advancing animal interests in AI-transformed worlds * Trying to use AI for near-term animal welfare work, and fundraising from donors who have invested in AI * Heavily discounting “normal” interventions that take 10+ years to help animals * “Rowing” on na