This is a special post for quick takes by Xing Shi Cai. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Comment Permalink
Adrian Tchaikovsky, the science fiction writer, is a master at crafting bleak, hellish future worlds. In Service Model, he has truly outdone himself, conjuring an absurd realm where human societies have crumbled, and humanity teeters on the brink of extinction.
Now, that scenario isn't entirely novel. But what renders the book both tear-inducing and hilarious, is the presence in this world of numerous sophisticated robots, designed to eliminate the slightest discomfort from human existence. Yet, they adhere so strictly to their programmed rules, that it only leads to endless absurdities, and meaningless ordeals for both robots and humans alike.
Science fiction writers, effective altruists, and Silicon Valley billionaires have long cautioned, that the rise of sentient, super-human artificial intelligence might herald the downfall of our own species. However, Tchaikovsky suggests a different, perhaps more mundane, and even more depressing scenario. He proposes that precisely because robots, no matter how advanced, lack free will, and cannot exercise their own volition in decision-making, they will not only fail to rescue us from impending environmental, political, and economic crises, but they will also be incapable of replacing us, by creating a better world of their own.
And, I believe, that is Tchaikovsky's final warning to humanity. I hope that future historians, if they still exist --- since there aren't any left in Service Model --- will regard him as a mere novelist, one who tries to capitalise on the general unease concerning advancements in artificial intelligence. Yet, I fear he may indeed be onto something.
I recently came across a search engine Ecosia and I would like to recommend it to EAs. The company promises to use its a portion of its profit to fund re-forestation projects. Their website claims that they have planted 128 millions trees since its launch. People who have looked into it (here and here) found the company is legitimate.
From my experience, it works well for most searches, but sometimes you do need Google. Fortunately it's very convenient to specify search engine in firefox. I found this is a very easy way to do a bit good which cost nearly nothing.
Curated and popular this week
·
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger.
Executive summary
See also a summary on Twitter / X.
The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions.
A dual imperative
→ Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to:
* Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges
* Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups
* Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis
→ But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could:
* Be exploited, subverting independent government action
* Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems
* Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines
Summary of the recommendations
1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI
Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should:
* Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.:
* Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced)
* Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services)
* Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices
* Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.:
* On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
·
Summary
Immediate skin-to-skin contact (SSC) between mothers and newborns and early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) may play a significant and underappreciated role in reducing neonatal mortality. These practices are distinct in important ways from more broadly recognized (and clearly impactful) interventions like kangaroo care and exclusive breastfeeding, and they are recommended for both preterm and full-term infants.
A large evidence base indicates that immediate SSC and EIBF substantially reduce neonatal mortality. Many randomized trials show that immediate SSC promotes EIBF, reduces episodes of low blood sugar, improves temperature regulation, and promotes cardiac and respiratory stability. All of these effects are linked to lower mortality, and the biological pathways between immediate SSC, EIBF, and reduced mortality are compelling. A meta-analysis of large observational studies found a 25% lower risk of mortality in infants who began breastfeeding within one hour of birth compared to initiation after one hour.
These practices are attractive targets for intervention, and promoting them is effective. Immediate SSC and EIBF require no commodities, are under the direct influence of birth attendants, are time-bound to the first hour after birth, are consistent with international guidelines, and are appropriate for universal promotion. Their adoption is often low, but ceilings are demonstrably high: many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have rates of EIBF less than 30%, yet several have rates over 70%. Multiple studies find that health worker training and quality improvement activities dramatically increase rates of immediate SSC and EIBF.
There do not appear to be any major actors focused specifically on promotion of universal immediate SSC and EIBF. By contrast, general breastfeeding promotion and essential newborn care training programs are relatively common.
More research on cost-effectiveness is needed, but it appears promising. Limited existing
·
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.
Overview
Background
This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.
This conference has evolved since 2023:
* The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel.
* The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working.
* This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round.
We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.
Luckily, it seems like it has been working!
This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.
Outcomes
On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3
Adrian Tchaikovsky, the science fiction writer, is a master at crafting bleak, hellish future worlds. In Service Model, he has truly outdone himself, conjuring an absurd realm where human societies have crumbled, and humanity teeters on the brink of extinction.
Now, that scenario isn't entirely novel. But what renders the book both tear-inducing and hilarious, is the presence in this world of numerous sophisticated robots, designed to eliminate the slightest discomfort from human existence. Yet, they adhere so strictly to their programmed rules, that it only leads to endless absurdities, and meaningless ordeals for both robots and humans alike.
Science fiction writers, effective altruists, and Silicon Valley billionaires have long cautioned, that the rise of sentient, super-human artificial intelligence might herald the downfall of our own species. However, Tchaikovsky suggests a different, perhaps more mundane, and even more depressing scenario. He proposes that precisely because robots, no matter how advanced, lack free will, and cannot exercise their own volition in decision-making, they will not only fail to rescue us from impending environmental, political, and economic crises, but they will also be incapable of replacing us, by creating a better world of their own.
And, I believe, that is Tchaikovsky's final warning to humanity. I hope that future historians, if they still exist --- since there aren't any left in Service Model --- will regard him as a mere novelist, one who tries to capitalise on the general unease concerning advancements in artificial intelligence. Yet, I fear he may indeed be onto something.