In the late 2000s and early 2010s, GiveWell would look at meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and get lots of expert input on whether they were interpreting them correctly. This was the sort of approach that was supposed to typify effective altruism.

Fast forward to the mid-2020s and now subjective intuition plays an unreasonably large role in how effective altruism attempts to answer empirical, quantitative questions of a scientific or technical nature. What happened to effective altruism?

Worse, it's become a recurring problem that subjective intuitions are deceptively dressed up as objective empirical evidence. It's bad enough to leave behind more rigorous, scientific approaches in favour of subjective intuition. It's even worse to mislead people — either willingly or through carelessness — into thinking you're reporting objective, measured data when you're really just reporting your subjective guesses.

This shift away from science toward intuition feels even more troubling when you connect it to the hostility expressed by some members of the EA community toward academia, journalism, and liberal democracy. There is a sort of dark, conspiratorial, fringe worldview you get when you combine these troubling tendencies. When considering this, it should be remembered that there have been violent killings and threats of killings at the peripheries of the EA community. This does not normally happen with mainstream social movements of this size. What is fuelling these extremist acts?

More and more, I appreciate just how important are the intellectual cornerstones of modern, Enlightenment society like science and liberalism, and the institutions that support them, like academia and journalism. Extremism and darkness are only a few short steps away from the light. The barrier between them is as thin as air.

May those who carry the light win, and may those lost in the darkness find their way back.

Anthropic just released its S-1 form, which contains the official financial information it must report to the SEC in order to go public. From the S-1, we now know that Anthropic's revenue grew more than 100x (specifically, 112x) from 2023 to 2025. Revenue was:

• $41 million in 2023
• $386 million in 2024
• $4.59 billion in 2025

A few people in the EA community apparently believe this revenue growth rate will continue for the next several years at least. However, I am confident we won't see Anthropic bring in $514 billion in revenue in 2027, which is what extrapolation would imply.

Indeed, I'm confident that Anthropic won't hit half of what extrapolation would imply, which is $257 billion in 2027.

I'm willing to bet as much and would be delighted to wager $20 on it, to be donated to the charity of the winner's choice.

I also have an open offer for a more general AI bubble bet.

Update (Friday, October 30th at 5:45pm Eastern):

Here's a good article on this topic. Two economists look at Anthropic's S-1 and ask whether a $2 trillion valuation is reasonable: https://econjared.substack.com/p/the-fantastical-promises-of-a-2-trillion

Invitation for bets

I’m willing to bet that Anthropic’s revenue growth over the next year will be slower than its revenue growth over the last 3 years. I proposed a specific bet here. Anyone who wants can offer to take the other side of that bet. Or you can make a counteroffer.

I’m also willing to make a longer-term bet that the AI industry is in a bubble. I proposed a specific bet for that, too, here. Feel free to offer to take the other side of that bet or make a counteroffer.

I’d also be open to other bets. It seems pointless to bet about whether AGI or transformative AI will be deployed within the next 5-10 years, yet, for the heck of it, I would agree to a bet against that, too. (I’ll make bets for small, nominal amounts of money to be donated to the winner’s charity of choice, since the practical and legal problems with betting are too large otherwise.)

I’d also bet against the deployment of 100,000+ SAE Level 5 fully autonomous vehicles in North America within the next 3 years, if anyone has a strong opinion on that. I’d make a similar bet against the deployment of autonomous humanoid robots in North American households, although we’d have to come up with some specific resolution criteria.

Similarly, I’d bet against any significant level of near-term labour automation by LLMs or generative AI. Or against LLMs becoming capable of performing all sorts of specific tasks well.

On any of these topics, I’m also open to invitations for a public dialogue. (More on that topic here.)

Edit (2026-07-12 at 21:55 UTC): I’m still open to bets. If you’re interested, please contact me on Substack or by email.

Here are my rules of thumb for improving communication on the EA Forum and in similar spaces online:

• Say what you mean, as plainly as possible.
• Try to use words and expressions that a general audience would understand.
• Be more casual and less formal if you think that means more people are more likely to understand what you're trying to say.
• To illustrate abstract concepts, give examples.
• Where possible, try to let go of minor details that aren't important to the main point someone is trying to make. Everyone slightly misspeaks (or mis... writes?) all the time. Attempts to correct minor details often turn into time-consuming debates that ultimately have little importance. If you really want to correct a minor detail, do so politely, and acknowledge that you're engaging in nitpicking.
• When you don't understand what someone is trying to say, just say that. (And be polite.)
• Don't engage in passive-aggressiveness or code insults in jargon or formal language. If someone's behaviour is annoying you, tell them it's annoying you. (If you don't want to do that, then you probably shouldn't try to communicate the same idea in a coded or passive-aggressive way, either.)
• If you're using an uncommon word or using a word that also has a more common definition in an unusual way (such as "truthseeking"), please define that word as you're using it and — if applicable — distinguish it from the more common way the word is used.
• Err on the side of spelling out acronyms, abbreviations, and initialisms. You don't have to spell out "AI" as "artificial intelligence", but an obscure term like "full automation of labour" or "FAOL" that was made up for one paper should definitely be spelled out.
• When referencing specific people or organizations, err on the side of giving a little more context, so that someone who isn't already in the know can more easily understand who or what you're talking about. For example, instead of just saying "MacAskill" or "Will", say "Will MacAskill" — just using the full name once per post or comment is enough. You could also mention someone's profession (e.g. "philosopher", "economist") or the organization they're affiliated with (e.g. "Oxford University", "Anthropic"). For organizations, when it isn't already obvious in context, it might be helpful to give a brief description. Rather than saying, "I donated to New Harvest and still feel like this was a good choice", you could say "I donated to New Harvest (a charity focused on cell cultured meat and similar biotech) and still feel like this was a good choice". The point of all this is to make what you write easy for more people to understand without lots of prior knowledge or lots of Googling.
• When in doubt, say it shorter.^[1] In my experience, when I take something I've written that's long and try to cut it down to something short, I usually end up with something a lot clearer and easier to understand than what I originally wrote.
• Kindness is fundamental. Maya Angelou said, “At the end of the day people won't remember what you said or did, they will remember how you made them feel.” Being kind is usually more important than whatever argument you're having.

Feel free to add your own rules of thumb.

1. ^{^}

   This advice comes from the psychologist Harriet Lerner's wonderful book Why Won't You Apologize? — given in the completely different context of close personal relationships. I think it also works here.

I used to feel so strongly about effective altruism. But my heart isn't in it anymore.

I still care about the same old stuff I used to care about, like donating what I can to important charities and trying to pick the charities that are the most cost-effective. Or caring about animals and trying to figure out how to do right by them, even though I haven't been able to sustain a vegan diet for more than a short time. And so on.

But there isn't a community or a movement anymore where I want to talk about these sorts of things with people. That community and movement existed, at least in my local area and at least to a limited extent in some online spaces, from about 2015 to 2017 or 2018.

These are the reasons for my feelings about the effective altruist community/movement, especially over the last one or two years:

-The AGI thing has gotten completely out of hand. I wrote a brief post here about why I strongly disagree with near-term AGI predictions. I wrote a long comment here about how AGI's takeover of effective altruism has left me disappointed, disturbed, and alienated. 80,000 Hours and Will MacAskill have both pivoted to focusing exclusively or almost exclusively on AGI. AGI talk has dominated the EA Forum for a while. It feels like AGI is what the movement is mostly about now, so now I just disagree with most of what effective altruism is about.

-The extent to which LessWrong culture has taken over or "colonized" effective altruism culture is such a bummer. I know there's been at least a bit of overlap for a long time, but ten years ago it felt like effective altruism had its own, unique culture and nowadays it feels like the LessWrong culture has almost completely taken over. I have never felt good about LessWrong or "rationalism" and the more knowledge and experience of it I've gained, the more I've accumulated a sense of repugnance, horror, and anger toward that culture and ideology. I hate to see that become what effective altruism is like.

-The stories about sexual harassment are so disgusting. They're really, really bad and crazy. And it's so annoying how many comments you see on EA Forum posts about sexual harassment that make exhausting, unempathetic, arrogant, and frankly ridiculous statements, if not borderline incomprehensible in some cases. You see these stories of sexual harassment in the posts and you see evidence of the culture that enables sexual harassment in the comments. Very, very, very bad. Not my idea of a community I can wholeheartedly feel I belong to.

-Kind of a similar story with sexism, racism, and transphobia. The level of underreaction I've seen to instances of racism has been crazymaking. It's similar to the comments under the posts about sexual harassment. You see people justifying or downplaying clearly immoral behaviour. It's sickening.

-A lot of the response to the Nonlinear controversy was disheartening. It was disheartening to see how many people were eager to enable, justify, excuse, downplay, etc. bad behaviour. Sometimes aggressively, arrogantly, and rudely. It was also disillusioning to see how many people were so... easily fooled.

-Nobody talks normal in this community. At least not on this forum, in blogs, and on podcasts. I hate the LessWrong lingo. To the extent the EA Forum has its own distinct lingo, I probably hate that too. The lingo is great if you want to look smart. It's not so great if you want other people to understand what the hell you are talking about. In a few cases, it seems like it might even be deliberate obscurantism. But mostly it's just people making poor choices around communication and writing style and word choice, maybe for some good reasons, maybe for some bad reasons, but bad choices either way. I think it's rare that writing with a more normal diction wouldn't enhance people's understanding of what you're trying to say, even if you're only trying to communicate with people who are steeped in the effective altruist niche. I don't think the effective altruist sublanguage is serving good thinking or good communication.

-I see a lot of interesting conjecture elevated to the level of conventional wisdom. Someone in the EA or LessWrong or rationalist subculture writes a creative, original, evocative blog post or forum post and then it becomes a meme, and those memes end up taking on a lot of influence over the discourse. Some of these ideas are probably promising. Many of them probably contain at least a grain of truth or insight. But they become conventional wisdom without enough scrutiny. Just because an idea is "homegrown" it takes on the force of a scientific idea that's been debated and tested in peer-reviewed journals for 20 years, or a widely held precept of academic philosophy. That seems just intellectually the wrong thing to do and also weirdly self-aggrandizing.

-An attitude I could call "EA exceptionalism", where people assert that people involved in effective altruism are exceptionally smart, exceptionally wise, exceptionally good, exceptionally selfless, etc. Not just above the average or median (however you would measure that), but part of a rare elite and maybe even superior to everyone else in the world. I see no evidence this is true. (In these sorts of discussions, you also sometimes see the lame argument that effective altruism is definitionally the correct approach to life because effective altruism means doing the most good and if something isn't doing the most good, then it isn't EA. The obvious implication of this argument is that what's called "EA" might not be true EA, and maybe true EA looks nothing like "EA". So, this argument is not a defense of the self-identified "EA" movement or community or self-identified "EA" thought.)

-There is a dark undercurrent to some EA thought, along the lines of negative utilitarianism, anti-natalism, misanthropy, and pessimism. I think there is a risk of this promoting suicidal ideation because it basically is suicidal ideation.

-Too much of the discourse seems to revolve around how to control people's behaviours or beliefs. It's a bit too House of Cards. I recently read about the psychologist Kurt Lewin's study on the most effective ways to convince women to use animal organs (e.g. kidneys, livers, hearts) in their cooking during meat shortages during World War II. He found that a less paternalistic approach that showed more respect for the women's was more effective in getting them to incorporate animal organs into their cooking. The way I think about this is: you didn't have to be manipulated to get to the point where you are in believing what you believe or caring this much about this issue. So, instead of thinking of how to best manipulate people, think about how you got to the point where you are and try to let people in on that in an honest, straightforward way. Not only is this probably more effective, it's also more moral and shows more epistemic humility (you might be wrong about what you believe and that's one reason not to try to manipulate people into believing it).

-A few more things but this list is already long enough.

Put all this together and the old stuff I cared about (charity effectiveness, giving what I can, expanding my moral circle) is lost in a mess of other stuff that is antithetical to what I value and what I believe. I'm not even sure the effective altruism movement should exist anymore. The world might be better off if it closed down shop. I don't know. It could free up a lot of creativity and focus and time and resources to work on other things that might end up being better things to work on.

I still think there is value in the version of effective altruism I knew around 2015, when the primary focus was on global poverty and the secondary focus was on animal welfare, and AGI was on the margins. That version of effective altruism is so different from what exists today — which is mostly about AGI and has mostly been taken over by the rationalist subculture — that I have to consider those two different things. Maybe the old thing will find new life in some new form. I hope so.

Will anyone take the other side of this bet? By January 1, 2034, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and Bloomberg will all agree the AI bubble has popped. (As in, they will all report it as news, not just publish an opinion column saying so.)

The stakes: $20 to the charity of the winner's choice.

Why this bet? Mainly just for fun. But also to make a point.

I chose 7 years as the time horizon for the bet because I read that 5 to 7 years is the time horizon for many AI investments.

My hunch is that the AI bubble will pop within 3 years, but who knows. Markets can keep lending and investing in unprofitable ventures for a very long time.

I’ve seen a few people in the LessWrong community congratulate the community on predicting or preparing for covid-19 earlier than others, but I haven’t actually seen the evidence that the LessWrong community was particularly early on covid or gave particularly wise advice on what to do about it. I looked into this, and as far as I can tell, this self-congratulatory narrative is a complete myth.

Many people were worried about and preparing for covid in early 2020 before everything finally snowballed in the second week of March 2020. I remember it personally.

In January 2020, some stores sold out of face masks in several different cities in North America. (One example of many.) The oldest post on LessWrong tagged with "covid-19" is from well after this started happening. (I also searched the forum for posts containing "covid" or "coronavirus" and sorted by oldest. I couldn’t find an older post that was relevant.) The LessWrong post is written by a self-described "prepper" who strikes a cautious tone and, oddly, advises buying vitamins to boost the immune system. (This seems dubious, possibly pseudoscientific.) To me, that first post strikes a similarly ambivalent, cautious tone as many mainstream news articles published before that post.

If you look at the covid-19 tag on LessWrong, the next post after that first one, the prepper one, is on February 5, 2020. The posts don't start to get really worried about covid until mid-to-late February.

How is the rest of the world reacting at that time? Here's a New York Times article from February 2, 2020, entitled "Wuhan Coronavirus Looks Increasingly Like a Pandemic, Experts Say", well before any of the worried posts on LessWrong:

The Wuhan coronavirus spreading from China is now likely to become a pandemic that circles the globe, according to many of the world’s leading infectious disease experts.

The prospect is daunting. A pandemic — an ongoing epidemic on two or more continents — may well have global consequences, despite the extraordinary travel restrictions and quarantines now imposed by China and other countries, including the United States.

The tone of the article is fairly alarmed, noting that in China the streets are deserted due to the outbreak, it compares the novel coronavirus to the 1918-1920 Spanish flu, and it gives expert quotes like this one:

It is “increasingly unlikely that the virus can be contained,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who now runs Resolve to Save Lives, a nonprofit devoted to fighting epidemics.

The worried posts on LessWrong don't start until weeks after this article was published. On a February 25, 2020 post asking when CFAR should cancel its in-person workshop, the top answer cites the CDC's guidance at the time about covid-19. It says that CFAR's workshops "should be canceled once U.S. spread is confirmed and mitigation measures such as social distancing and school closures start to be announced." This is about 2-3 weeks out from that stuff happening. So, what exactly is being called early here?

CFAR is based in the San Francisco Bay Area, as are Lightcone Infrastructure and MIRI, two other organizations associated with the LessWrong community. On February 25, 2020, the city of San Francisco declared a state of emergency over covid. (Nearby, Santa Clara county, where most of what people consider as Silicon Valley is located, declared a local health emergency on February 10.) At this point in time, posts on LessWrong remain overall cautious and ambivalent.

By the time the posts on LessWrong get really, really worried, in the last few days of February and the first week of March, much of the rest of the world was reacting in the same way.

From February 14 to February 25, the S&P 500 dropped about 7.5%. Around this time, financial analysts and economists issued warnings about the global economy.

Between February 21 and February 27, Italy began its first lockdowns of areas where covid outbreaks had occurred.

On February 25, 2020, the CDC warned Americans of the possibility that "disruption to everyday life may be severe". The CDC made this bracing statement:

It's not so much a question of if this will happen anymore, but more really a question of when it will happen — and how many people in this country will have severe illness.

Another line from the CDC:

We are asking the American public to work with us to prepare with the expectation that this could be bad.

On February 26, Canada's Health Minister advised Canadians to stockpile food and medication.

The most prominent LessWrong post from late February warning people to prepare for covid came a few days later, on February 28. So, on this comparison, LessWrong was actually slightly behind the curve. (Oddly, that post insinuates that nobody else is telling people to prepare for covid yet, and congratulates itself on being ahead of the curve.)

In the beginning of March, the number of LessWrong posts tagged with covid-19 posts explodes, and the tone gets much more alarmed. The rest of the world was responding similarly at this time. For example, on February 29, 2020, Ohio declared a state of emergency around covid. On March 4, Governor Gavin Newsom did the same in California. The governor of Hawaii declared an emergency the same day, and over the next few days, many more states piled on.

Around the same time, the general public was becoming alarmed about covid. In the last days of February and the first days of March, many people stockpiled food and supplies. On February 29, 2020, PBS ran an article describing an example of this at a Costco in Oregon:

Worried shoppers thronged a Costco box store near Lake Oswego, emptying shelves of items including toilet paper, paper towels, bottled water, frozen berries and black beans.

“Toilet paper is golden in an apocalypse,” one Costco employee said.

Employees said the store ran out of toilet paper for the first time in its history and that it was the busiest they had ever seen, including during Christmas Eve.

A March 1, 2020 article in the Los Angeles Times reported on stores in California running out of product as shoppers stockpiled. On March 2, an article in Newsweek described the same happening in Seattle:

Speaking to Newsweek, a resident of Seattle, Jessica Seu, said: "It's like Armageddon here. It's a bit crazy here. All the stores are out of sanitizers and [disinfectant] wipes and alcohol solution. Costco is out of toilet paper and paper towels. Schools are sending emails about possible closures if things get worse.

In Canada, the public was responding the same way. Global News reported on March 3, 2020 that a Costco in Ontario ran out bottled water, toilet paper, and paper towels, and that the situation was similar at other stores around the country. The spike in worried posts on LessWrong coincides with the wider public's reaction. (If anything, the posts on LessWrong are very slightly behind the news articles about stores being picked clean by shoppers stockpiling.)

On March 5, 2020, the cruise ship the Grand Princess made the news because it was stranded off the coast of California due to a covid outbreak on board. I remember this as being one seminal moment of awareness around covid. It was a big story. At this point, LessWrong posts are definitely in no way ahead of the curve, since everyone is talking about covid now.

On March 8, 2020, Italy put a quarter of its population under lockdown, then put the whole country on lockdown on March 10. On March 11, the World Health Organization declared covid-19 a global pandemic. (The same day, the NBA suspended the season and Tom Hanks publicly disclosed he had covid.) On March 12, Ohio closed its schools statewide. The U.S. declared a national emergency on March 13. The same day, 15 more U.S. states closed their schools. Also on the same day, Canada's Parliament shut down because of the pandemic. By now, everyone knows it's a crisis.

So, did LessWrong call covid early? I see no evidence of that. The timeline of LessWrong posts about covid follow the same timeline that the world at large reacted to covid, increasing in alarm as journalists, experts, and governments increasingly rang the alarm bells. In some comparisons, LessWrong's response was a little bit behind.

The only curated post from this period (and the post with the third-highest karma, one of only four posts with over 100 karma) tells LessWrong users to prepare for covid three days after the CDC told Americans to prepare, and two days after Canada's Health Minister told Canadians to stockpile food and medication. It was also three days after San Francisco declared a state of emergency. When that post was published, many people were already stockpiling supplies, partly because government health officials had told them to. (The LessWrong post was originally published on a blog a day before, and based on a note in the text apparently written the day before that, but that still puts the writing of the post a day after the CDC warning and the San Francisco declaration of a state of emergency.)

Unless there is some evidence that I didn't turn up, it seems pretty clear the self-congratulatory narrative is a myth. The self-congratulation actually started in that post published on February 28, 2020, which, again, is odd given the CDC's warning three days before (on the same day that San Francisco declared a state of emergency), analysts' and economists' warnings about the global economy a bit before that, and the New York Times article warning about a probable pandemic at the beginning of the month. The post is slightly behind the curve, but it's gloating as if it's way ahead.

Looking at the overall LessWrong post history in early 2020, LessWrong seems to have been, if anything, slightly behind the New York Times, the S&P 500, the CDC, and enough members of the general public to clear out some stores of certain products. By the time LessWrong posting reached a frenzy in the first week of March, the world was already responding — U.S governors were declaring states of emergency, and everyone was talking about and worrying about covid.

I think people should be skeptical and even distrustful toward the claims of the LessWrong community, both on topics like pandemics and about its own track record and mythology. Obviously this myth is self-serving, and it was pretty easy for me to disprove in a short amount of time — so anyone who is curious can check and see that it's not true. The people in the LessWrong community who believe the community called covid early probably believe that because it's flattering. If they actually wondered if this is true or not and checked the timelines, it would become pretty clear that didn't actually happen.

Edited to add on Monday, December 15, 2025 at 3:20pm Eastern:

I spun this quick take out as a full post here. When I submitted the full post, there was no/almost no engagement on this quick take. In the future, I'll try to make sure to publish things only as a quick take or only as a full post, but not both. This was a fluke under unusual circumstances.

Feel free to continue commenting here, cross-post comments from here onto the full post, make new comments on the post, or do whatever you want. Thanks to everyone who engaged and left interesting comments.

Rate limiting on the EA Forum is too strict. Given that people karma downvote because of disagreement, rather than because of quality or civility — or they judge quality and/or civility largely on the basis of what they agree or disagree with — there is a huge disincentive against expressing unpopular or controversial opinions (relative to the views of active EA Forum users, not necessarily relative to the general public or relevant expert communities) on certain topics.

This is a message I saw recently:

You aren't just rate limited for 24 hours once you fall below the recent karma threshold (which can be triggered by one comment that is unpopular with a handful of people), you're rate limited for as many days as it takes you to gain 25 net karma on new comments — which might take a while, since you can only leave one comment per day, and, also, people might keep downvoting your unpopular comment. (Unless you delete it — which I think I've seen happen, but I won't do, myself, because I'd rather be rate limited than self-censor.)

The rate limiting system is a brilliant idea for new users or users who have less than 50 total karma — the ones who have little plant icons next to their names. It's an elegant, automatic way to stop spam, trolling, and other abuses. But my forum account is 2.5 years old and I have over 1,000 karma. I have 24 posts published over 2 years, all with positive karma. My average karma per post/comment is +2.3 (not counting the default karma that all post/comments start with; this is just counting karma from people's votes).

Examples of comments I've gotten downvoted into the net -1 karma or lower range include a methodological critique of a survey that was later accepted to be correct and led to the research report of an EA-adjacent organization getting revised. In another case, a comment was downvoted to negative karma when it was only an attempt to correct the misuse of a technical term in machine learning — a topic which anyone can confirm I've gotten right with a few fairly quick Google searches. People are absolutely not just downvoting comments that are poor quality or rude by any reasonable standard. They are downvoting things they disagree with or dislike for some other reason. (There are many other examples like the ones I just gave, including everything from directly answering a question to clarifying a point of disagreement to expressing a fairly anodyne and mainstream opinion that at least some prominent experts in the relevant field agree with.) Given this, karma downvoting as an automatic moderation tool with thresholds this sensitive just discourages disagreement.

One of the most important cognitive biases to look out for in a context like EA is group polarization, which is the tendency of individuals' views to become more extreme once they join a group, even if each of the individuals had less extreme views before joining the group (i.e., they aren't necessarily being converted by a few zealots who already had extreme views before joining). One way to mitigate group polarization is to have a high tolerance for internal disagreement and debate. I think the EA Forum does have that tolerance for certain topics and within certain windows of accepted opinions for most topics that are discussed, but not for other topics or only within a window that is quite narrow if you compare it to, say, the general population or expert opinion. 

For example, 76% of AI experts believe it's unlikely or very unlikely that LLMs will scale to AGI according to one survey, yet the opinion of EA Forum users seems to be the opposite of that. Not everyone on the EA Forum seems to consider the majority expert opinion an opinion worth considering too seriously. To me, that looks like group polarization in action. It's one thing to disagree with expert opinion with some degree of uncertainty and epistemic humility, it's another thing to see expert opinion as beneath serious discussion.

I don't know what specific tweaks to the rate limiting system would be best. Maybe just turn it off altogether for users with over 500 karma (and rely on reporting posts/comments and moderator intervention to handle real problems), or as Jason suggested here, have the karma threshold trigger manual review by a moderator rather than automatic rate limiting. Jason also made some other interesting suggestions for tweaks in that comment and noted, correctly:

Strong downvoting by a committed group is the most obvious way to manipulate the system into silencing those with whom you disagree.

This actually works. I am reluctant to criticize the ideas of or express disagreement with certain organizations/books because of rate limiting, and rate limiting is the #1 thing that makes me feel like just giving up on trying to engage in intellectual debate and discussion and just quit the EA Forum.

I may be slow to reply to any comments on this quick take due to the forum's rate limiting.

If the people arguing that there is an AI bubble turn out to be correct and the bubble pops, to what extent would that change people's minds about near-term AGI? 

I strongly suspect there is an AI bubble because the financial expectations around AI seem to be based on AI significantly enhancing productivity and the evidence seems to show it doesn't do that yet. This could change — and I think that's what a lot of people in the business world are thinking and hoping. But my view is a) LLMs have fundamental weaknesses that make this unlikely and b) scaling is running out of steam.

Scaling running out of steam actually means three things:

1) Each new 10x increase in compute is less practically or qualitatively valuable than previous 10x increases in compute.

2) Each new 10x increase in compute is getting harder to pull off because the amount of money involved is getting unwieldy.

3) There is an absolute ceiling to the amount of data LLMs can train on that they are probably approaching.

So, AI investment is dependent on financial expectations that are depending on LLMs enhancing productivity, which isn't happening and probably won't happen due to fundamental problems with LLMs and due to scaling becoming less valuable and less feasible. This implies an AI bubble, which implies the bubble will eventually pop. 

So, if the bubble pops, will that lead people who currently have a much higher estimation than I do of LLMs' current capabilities and near-term prospects to lower that estimation? If AI investment turns out to be a bubble, and it pops, would you change your mind about near-term AGI? Would you think it's much less likely? Would you think AGI is probably much farther away?

The Ezra Klein Show (one of my favourite podcasts) just released an episode with GiveWell CEO Elie Hassenfeld!

The NPR podcast Planet Money just released an episode on GiveWell.

Suggestion: Leverage Research deep dive

Someone (other than me) should write a deep-dive post about the cult Leverage Research and its infiltration of effective altruism.

The story, in brief:

• Leverage Research is a cult.
• Leverage Research organized the first EA Summit in 2013 and the second EA Summit in 2014. The EA Summits were the first effective altruism conferences of any kind.
• Leverage Research also helped to organize the first EA Global conferences, which began in 2015 and continue to this day.
• In 2016, a major EA program, the Pareto Fellowship, was run largely by Leverage Research. There is some evidence the Pareto Fellowship was run in a cult-like fashion.
• Leverage Research eventually gained full control of the Centre for Effective Altruism in 2018 when one of its members, Larissa Hesketh-Rowe, became the CEO. 

The purpose of the deep-dive post would be for people in EA to understand the truth about what happened. And to learn whatever lessons they think they should learn from that.

These are the questions I would recommend asking and attempting to answer in the deep-dive post:

• Is Leverage Research a cult?
• Did it take over the Centre for Effective Altruism?
• Did it organize the EA Summits and the Pareto Fellowship? Did it play an important role in organizing the first EA Globals?
• If so, how could the EA movement, particularly the core international leadership, let this happen?
• If so, what might be the broader ramifications of this for the EA movement?
• What (if anything) is there to learn from this?

I don’t know what the chances would be of actually getting funded, but someone who wanted to spend a lot of time investigating this topic could apply for a $1,000+ grant from the EA Infrastructure Fund. 

I’m not sure if Coefficient Giving (formerly Open Philanthropy) would even consider funding something so small and so specific to EA community self-reflection, but you can look at the relevant info here.

The economist Tyler Cowen linked to my post on self-driving cars, so it ended up getting a lot more readers than I ever expected. I hope that more people now realize, at the very least, self-driving cars are not an uncontroversial, uncomplicated AI success story. In discussions around AGI, people often say things along the lines of: ‘deep learning solved self-driving cars, so surely it will be able to solve many other problems'. In fact, the lesson to draw is the opposite: self-driving is too hard a problem for the current cutting edge in deep learning (and deep reinforcement learning), and this should make us think twice before cavalierly proclaiming that deep learning will soon be able to master even more complex, more difficult tasks than driving.

Since my days of reading William Easterly's Aid Watch blog back in the late 2000s and early 2010s, I've always thought it was a matter of both justice and efficacy to have people from globally poor countries in leadership positions at organizations working on global poverty. All else being equal, a person from Kenya is going to be far more effective at doing anti-poverty work in Kenya than someone from Canada with an equal level of education, an equal ability to network with the right international organizations, etc.

In practice, this is probably hard to do, since it requires crossing language barriers, cultural barriers, geographical distance, and international borders. But I think it's worth it.

So much of what effective altruism does, including around global poverty, including around the most evidence-based and quantitative work on global poverty, relies on people's intuitions, and people's intuitions formed from living in wealthy, Western countries with no connection to or experience of a globally poor country are going to be less accurate than people who have lived in poor countries and know a lot about them.

Simply put, first-hand experience of poor countries is a form of expertise and organizations run by people with that expertise are probably going to be a lot more competent at helping globally poor people than ones that aren't.

I just want to point out that I have a degree in philosophy and have never heard the word "epistemics" used in the context of academic philosophy. The word used has always been either epistemology or epistemic as adjective in front of a noun (never on its own, always used as an adjective, not a noun, and certainly never pluralized). 

From what I can tell, "epistemics" seems to be weird EA Forum/LessWrong jargon. Not sure how or why this came about, since this is not obscure philosophy knowledge, nor is it hard to look up.

If you Google "epistemics" philosophy, you get 1) sources like Wikipedia that talk about epistemology, not "epistemics", 2) a post from the EA Forum and a page from the Forethought Foundation, which is an effective altruist organization, 3) some unrelated, miscellaneous stuff (i.e. neither EA-related or academic philosophy-related), and 4) a few genuine but fairly obscure uses of the word "epistemics" in an academic philosophy context. This confirms that the term is rarely used in academic philosophy.

I also don't know what people in EA mean when they say "epistemics". I think they probably mean something like epistemic practices, but I actually don't know for sure.

I would discourage the use of the term "epistemics", particularly as its meaning is unclear, and would advocate for a replacement such as epistemology or epistemic practices (or whatever you like, but not "epistemics").

A number of podcasts are doing a fundraiser for GiveDirectly: https://www.givedirectly.org/happinesslab2025/ 

Podcast about the fundraiser: https://pca.st/bbz3num9

“We should free SBF and put him to work.” –Austin Chen (2025 interview)

“I felt a keen debt to the FTX Future Fund. They provided seed funding for Manifold.” –Austin Chen on why he hired Caroline Ellison

There are two philosophies on what the key to life is.

The first philosophy is that the key to life is separate yourself from the wretched masses of humanity by finding a special group of people that is above it all and becoming part of that group.

The second philosophy is that the key to life is to see the universal in your individual experience. And this means you are always stretching yourself to include more people, find connection with more people, show compassion and empathy to more people. But this is constantly uncomfortable because, again and again, you have to face the wretched masses of humanity and say "me too, me too, me too" (and realize you are one of them).

I am a total believer in the second philosophy and a hater of the first philosophy. (Not because it's easy, but because it's right!) To the extent I care about effective altruism, it's because of the second philosophy: expand the moral circle, value all lives equally, extend beyond national borders, consider non-human creatures.

When I see people in effective altruism evince the first philosophy, to me, this is a profane betrayal of the whole point of the movement.

One of the reasons (among several other important reasons) that rationalists piss me off so much is their whole worldview and subculture is based on the first philosophy. Even the word "rationalist" is about being superior to other people. If the rationalist community has one founder or leader, it would be Eliezer Yudkowsky. The way Eliezer Yudkowsky talks to and about other people, even people who are actively trying to help him or to understand him, is so hateful and so mean. He exhales contempt. And it isn't just Eliezer — you can go on LessWrong and read horrifying accounts of how some prominent people in the community have treated their employee or their romantic partner, with the stated justification that they are separate from and superior to others. Obviously there's a huge problem with racism, sexism, and anti-LGBT prejudice too, which are other ways of feeling separate and above.

There is no happiness to be found at the top of a hierarchy. Look at the people who think in the most hierarchical terms, who have climbed to the tops of the hierarchies they value. Are they happy? No. They're miserable. This is a game you can't win. It's a con. It's a lie.

In the beautiful words of the Franciscan friar Richard Rohr, "The great and merciful surprise is that we come to God not by doing it right but by doing it wrong!"

(Richard Rohr's episode of You Made It Weird with Pete Holmes is wonderful if you want to hear more.) 

People in effective altruism or adjacent to it should make some public predictions or forecasts about whether AI is in a bubble. 

Since the timeline of any bubble is extremely hard to predict and isn’t the core issue, the time horizon for the bubble prediction could be quite long, say, 5 years. The point would not be to worry about the exact timeline but to get at the question of whether there is a bubble that will pop (say, before January 1, 2031). 

For those who know more about forecasting than me, and especially for those who can think of good ways to financially operationalize such a prediction, I would encourage you to make a post about this.

[Edited on Nov. 17, 2025 at 3:35 PM Eastern to add: I wrote a full-fledged post about the AI bubble that can prompt a richer discussion. It doesn’t attempt to operationalize the bubble question, but gets into the expert opinions and evidence. I also do my own analysis.]

For now, an informal poll: