Quick takes

Set topic
Frontpage
Global health
Animal welfare
Existential risk
Biosecurity & pandemics
11 more

It is popular to hate on Swapcard, and yet Swapcard seems like the best available solution despite its flaws. Claude Code or other AI coding assistants are very good nowadays, and conceivably, someone could just Claude Code a better Swapcard that maintained feature parity while not having flaws.

Overall I'm guessing this would be too hard right now, but we do live in an age of mysteries and wonders. It gets easier every month. One reason for optimism is it seems like the Swapcard team is probably not focused on the somewhat odd use case of EAGs in general (... (read more)

6
Patrick Gruban 🔸
@Yonatan Cale posted a demo last week of an app he’s building in the EAG Bay Area Slack.

Yes,

I could use help understanding the demand for

  1. Similar features but less bugs
  2. Focusing on CEA's use case (making more high quality connections, right?)

Can you help me with this @Eli Rose🔸 ?

Is the recent partial lifting of US chip export controls on China (see e.g. here: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/selling-h200s-to-china-is-unwise) good or bad for humanity? I’ve seen many takes from people whose judgment I respect arguing that it is very bad, but their arguments, imho, just don’t make sense. What am I missing?

For transparency, I am neither Chinese nor American, nor am I a paid agent of them. I am not at all confident in this take, but imho someone should make it.

I see two possible scenarios: A) you are not sure how close humanity is to deve... (read more)

Recent generations of Claude seem better at understanding blog posts and making fairly subtle judgment calls than most smart humans. These days when I’d read an article that presumably sounds reasonable to most people but has what seems to me to be a glaring conceptual mistake, I can put it in Claude, ask it to identify the mistake, and more likely than not Claude would land on the same mistake as the one I identified.

I think before Opus 4 this was essentially impossible, Claude 3.xs can sometimes identify small errors but it’s a crapshoot on whether it ca... (read more)

2
Benevolent_Rain
This resonates a lot. I’m keen to connect with others who are actively thinking about when it becomes justified to hand off specific parts of their work to AI. Reading this, it seems like the key discovery wasn’t “Claude is good at critique in general,” but that a particular epistemic function — identifying important conceptual mistakes in a text — crossed a reliability threshold. The significance, as I read it, is that you can now trust Claude roughly like a reasonable colleague for spotting such mistakes, both in your own drafts and in texts you rely on at work or in life. I’m interested in concrete ways people are structuring this kind of exploration in practice: choosing which tasks to stress-test for delegation, running those tests cheaply and repeatably, and deciding when a workflow change is actually warranted rather than premature. My aim is simple: produce higher-quality output more quickly without giving up epistemic control. If others are running similar experiments, have heuristics for this, or want to collaborate on lightweight evaluation approaches, I’d be keen to compare notes.

The significance, as I read it, is that you can now trust Claude roughly like a reasonable colleague for spotting such mistakes, both in your own drafts and in texts you rely on at work or in life.

I wouldn't go quite this far, at least from my comment. There's a saying in startups, "never outsource your core competency", and unfortunately reading blog posts and spotting conceptual errors of a certain form is a core competency of mine. Nonetheless I'd encourage other Forum users less good at spotting errors (which is most people) to try to do something like... (read more)

I like Scott's Mistake Theory vs Conflict Theory framing, but I don't think this is a complete model of disagreements about policy, nor do I think the complete models of disagreement will look like more advanced versions of Mistake Theory + Conflict Theory. 

To recap, here's my short summaries of the two theories:

Mistake Theory: I disagree with you because one or both of us are wrong about what we want, or how to achieve what we want)

Conflict Theory: I disagree with you because ultimately I want different things from you. The Marxists, who Scott was or... (read more)

4
Mjreard
I'll need to reread Scott's post to see how reductive it is,[1] but negotiation and motivated cognition here do feel like a slightly lower level of abstraction in the sense that they are composed or different kinds of (and proportions of) conflicts and mistakes. The dynamics you discuss here follow pretty intuitively from the basic conflict/mistake paradigm. This is still great analysis and a useful addendum to Scott's post. 1. ^ actually pretty reductive on a skim, but he does have a savings clause at the end: "But obviously both can be true in parts and reality can be way more complicated than either."

The dynamics you discuss here follow pretty intuitively from the basic conflict/mistake paradigm.

I think it's very easy to believe that the natural extension of the conflicts/mistakes paradigm is that policy fights are composed of a linear combination of the two. Schelling's "rudimentary/obvious" idea, for example, that conflict is and cooperation is often structurally inseparable, is a more subtle and powerful reorientation than it first seems.

But this is a hard point to discuss (because it's in the structure of an "unknown known"), and I didn't interview... (read more)

A bit sad to find out that Open Philanthropy’s (now Coefficient Giving) GCR Cause Prioritization team is no more. 

I heard it was removed/restructured mid-2025. Seems like most of the people were distributed to other parts of the org. I don't think there were public announcements of this, though it is quite possible I missed something. 

I imagine there must have been a bunch of other major changes around Coefficient that aren't yet well understood externally. This caught me a bit off guard. 

There don't seem to be many active online artifa... (read more)

Showing 3 of 4 replies (Click to show all)
24
David Bernard
Thanks for flagging this, Ozzie. I led the GCR Cause Prio team for the last year before it was wound down, so I can add some context. The honest summary is that the team never really achieved product-market fit. Despite the name, we weren't really doing “cause prioritization” as most people would conceive of it. GCR program teams have wide remits within their areas and more domain expertise and networks than we had, so the separate cause prio team model didn't work as well as it does for GHW, where it’s more fruitful to dig into new literatures and build quantitative models. In practice, our work ended up being a mix of supporting a variety of projects for different program teams and trying to improve grant evaluation methods. GCR leadership felt that this set-up wasn’t on track to answer their most important strategy and research questions and that it wasn’t worth the opportunity cost of the people on the team. GCR leadership are considering alternative paths forward, though haven’t decided on anything yet. I don't think there are any other comparably major structural changes at Coefficient to flag, other than that we’re trying to scale Good Ventures' giving and work with other partners, as described in our name change announcement post. I’ll also note that the Worldview Investigation team also wound down in H2, although that case was because team members left for other high-impact roles (e.g. Joe) and not through a top-down decision. This means that there's no longer much dedicated pure research capacity within GCR, though grantmaking here is fairly contiguous with research in practice. 

Thanks so much for this response! That's really useful to know. I really appreciate the transparency and clarity here. 

Hope that the team members of it are all doing well now.  

2
Ozzie Gooen
I don't mean to sound too negative on this - I did just say "a bit sad" on that one specific point. Do I think that CE is doing worse or better overall? It seems like Coefficient has been making a bunch of changes, and I don't feel like I have a good handle on the details. They've also been expanding a fair bit. I'd naively assume that a huge amount of work is going on behind the scenes to hire and grow, and that this is putting CE in a better place on average. I would expect this (the GCR prio team change) to be some evidence that specific ambitious approaches to GCR prioritization are more limited now. I think there are a bunch of large projects that could be done in this area that would probably take a team to do well, and right now it's not clear who else could do such projects. Bigger-picture, I personally think GCR prioritization/strategy is under-investigated, but I respect that others have different priorities.

As a university organizer at a very STEM focused state school, I suspect that students getting liberal arts degrees are more easily convinced to pursue a career in direct work. If this is the case, it could be because direct work compares more favorably with the other career options of those with liberal arts degrees, or because the clearer career outcomes of STEM majors create more path dependence and friction when they consider switching careers. This is potentially another thing to keep in mind when trying to compare the successes of EA uni groups.

U.S. Politics should be a main focus of US EAs right now. In the past year alone, every major EA cause area has been greatly hurt or bottlenecked by Trump. $40 billion in global health and international development funds was lost when USAID shut down, which some researchers project could lead to 14 million more deaths by 2030. Trump has signed an Executive Order that aims to block states from creating their own AI regulations, and has allowed our most powerful chips to be exported to China. Trump has withdrawn funding from, and U.S. support for, internatio... (read more)

Showing 3 of 9 replies (Click to show all)
1
Tyler Kolota
I’m still catching up on some work for a global health contractor, but when I get more spare time I want to develop a website to help people contact their representatives about several EA topics. And it would be nice to enable multiple channels of contact like email, phone, text message, mail/post-card, social media, etc, so people can partly express intensity of interest through varied & frequent messaging.
2
Charlie_Guthmann
What do people think of the idea of pushing for a constitutional convention/amendment? The coalition would be ending presidential immunity + reducing the pardon powers + banning stock trading for elected officials. Probably politically impossible but if there were ever a time it might be now.

If we’re doing a constitutional convention then really make it count…

-Statehood for Puerto Rico & Washington D.C.

-Expand the house so each representative represents fewer people.

https://youtu.be/KhQGHY44XPM?si=iLivhjAUAl-igEtd

-Make some extra Senators elected by popular vote.

-Make it easier to remove the president/executive with a congressional vote of no confidence or a 60% referendum vote at each mid-terms.

-Add term limits to the supreme court & elect new justices on a schedule. Or make the Supreme Court a rotating lottery of Appellate judges.

Lizka
51
1
0
16

Benjamin Lay — "Quaker Comet", early (radical) abolitionist, general "moral weirdo" — died on this day 267 years ago. 

I shared a post about him a little while back, and still think of February 8 as "Benjamin Lay Day". 

...

Around the same time I also made two paintings inspired by his life/work, which I figured I'd share now. One is an icon-style-inspired image based on a portrait of him[1]:

Benjamin Lay portrait, in front of his cave (stylized) and the quaker meeting house in Pennsylvania

The second is based on a print depicting the floor plan of an infamous slave ship (Brooks). The print was used by abolitionists (mainly(?) the Society for Effec... (read more)

Thank you for reminding about this remarkable person. I'll add him to my personal inspirational list of Humanity's Best People

4
Angelina Li
Wow, I've never seen that print before. That is absolutely horrifying. I feel kind of sick looking at it. What a stark reminder of the costs of getting morality wrong. Thank you for painting it, for sharing it, and for the reminder of this day.

The AI Eval Singularity is Near

  • AI capabilities seem to be doubling every 4-7 months
  • Humanity's ability to measure capabilities is growing much more slowly
  • This implies an "eval singularity": a point at which capabilities grow faster than our ability to measure them
  • It seems like the singularity is ~here in cybersecurity, CBRN, and AI R&D (supporting quotes below)
  • It's possible that this is temporary, but the people involved seem pretty worried

Appendix - quotes on eval saturation

Opus 4.6

  • "For AI R&D capabilities, we found that Claude Opus 4.6 h
... (read more)

Related, from an OAI researcher.

13
MichaelDickens
Ah yes, this supports my pre-conceived belief that (1) we cannot reliably ascertain whether a model has catastrophically dangerous capabilities, and therefore (2) we need to stop developing increasingly powerful models until we get a handle on things.

I've just noticed that the OBBB Act contains a "no tax on overtime" provision, exempting extra overtime pay up to a deduction of $12,500, for tax years 2025-2028. If you, like me, are indifferent between 40-hour workweeks and alternating 32- and 48-hour workweeks, you can get a pretty good extra tax deduction. This can be as easy as working one weekend day every 2 weeks and taking a 3-day weekend the following week. (That's an upper bound on the difficulty! Depending on your schedule and preferences there are probably even easier ways.) Unfortunately this only works for hourly, not salaried, employees.

It seems like a worthwhile project to ask/pressure Anthropic's founders to make their pledges legally binding. 

Anthropic's founders have pledged to donate 80% of their wealth. Ozzie Gooen estimates that in a few years this could be worth >$40 billion.

As Ozzie writes, adherence to the Giving Pledge (the Gates one) is pretty low: only 36% of deceased original pledgers met the 50% commitment. It's hard to follow through on such commitments, even for (originally) highly morally motivated people.

Showing 3 of 5 replies (Click to show all)

It would probably be worthwhile to encourage legally binding versions of the Giving Pledge in general

Donations before death are optimal, but it's particularly easy to ensure that the pledge is met at that stage with a will which can be updated at the time of signing it. (I presume most of the 64% did have a will, but chose to leave their fortune to others. I guess it's possible some fortunes inherited by widow[er]s will be donated to pledged causes in the fullness of time). 

I don't think this should replace the Giving Pledge; some people's inte... (read more)

4
NickLaing
I'm going to guess the total donated will be 30% of this by EA funders, and a low percentage by the rest. I think your conservative number is WAY too low based on previous pledge fulfillment rates. I get that it's just a claude generation though But that's still 2 billion dollars at least, so I've updated positively on the amount of money that might go to good causes. Thanks for this @Ozzie Gooen strong upvote.
4
Ozzie Gooen
I had my Claude system do some brainstorming work on this.  https://www.longtermwiki.com/knowledge-base/models/intervention-models/anthropic-pledge-enforcement/ It generated some more specific interventions here.  

Should GiveWell offer Animal Welfare regrants on an opt-in basis?

The GiveWell FAQ (quoted below) suggests that GiveWell focuses exclusively on human-directed interventions primarily for reasons of specialization—i.e., avoiding duplication of work already done by Coefficient Giving and others—rather than due to a principled objection to recommending animal-focused charities. If GiveWell is willing to recommend these organizations when asked, why not reduce the friction a bit?

A major part of GiveWell’s appeal has been its role as an “index fund for charities... (read more)

TBH my sense is that GiveWell is just being polite.

A perhaps more realistic motivation is that admitting animal suffering into GiveWell's models would implicitly force them to specify moral weights for animals (versus humans), and there is no way to do that without inviting huge controversy leaving at least some groups very upset. Much easier to say "sorry, not our wheelhouse" and effectively set animal weights to zero.

FWIW I agree with this decision (of GiveWell's).

Potential Animal Welfare intervention: encourage the ASPCA and others to scale up their FAW budget

I’ve only recently come to appreciate how large the budgets are for the ASPCA, Humane World (formerly HSUS), and similar large, broad-based animal charities. At a quick (LLM) scan of their public filings, they appear to have a combined annual budget of ~$1Bn, most of which is focused on companion animals.

Interestingly, both the ASPCA and Humane World explicitly mention factory farming as one of their areas of concern. Yet, based on available data, it looks lik... (read more)

Mental health support for those working on AI risks and policy?

During the numerous projects I work on relating to AI risks, policies, and future threats/scenarios, I speak to a lot of people who bring exposed to issues of catastrophic and existential nature for the first time (or grappling with them for the first time in detail). This combined with the likelihood that things will get worse before they better, makes me frequently wonder: are we doing enough around mental health support?

Things that I don’t know exist but feel they should. Some may sound OTT ... (read more)

What are people's favorite arguments/articles/essays trying to lay out the simplest possible case for AI risk/danger?

Every single argument for AI danger/risk/safety I’ve seen seems to overcomplicate things. Either they have too many extraneous details, or they appeal to overly complex analogies, or they seem to spend much of their time responding to insider debates.

I might want to try my hand at writing the simplest possible argument that is still rigorous and clear, without being trapped by common pitfalls. To do that, I want to quickly survey the field so I can learn from the best existing work as well as avoid the mistakes they make.

I've now written it here, thanks for all the feedback! :) https://linch.substack.com/p/simplest-case-ai-catastrophe

2
Will Aldred
my fave is @Duncan Sabien’s ‘Deadly by Default’
1
Jordan Arel
Max Tegmark explains it best I think. Very clear and compelling and you don’t need any technical background to understand what he’s saying. I believe his third or maybe it was second appearance on Lex Fridman’s podcast where I first heard his strongest arguments, although those are quite long with extraneous content, here is a version that is just the arguments. His solutions are somewhat specific, but overall his explanation is very good I think:

I've been experimenting recently with a longtermist wiki, written fully with LLMs.

Some key decisions/properties:
1. Fully LLM-generated, heavily relying on Claude Code.
2. Somewhat opinionated. Tries to represent something of a median longtermist/EA longview, with a focus on the implications of AI. All pages are rated for "importance".
3. Claude will estimates a lot of percentages and letter grades for things. If you see a percentage or grade, and there's no citation, it might well be a guess by Claude.
4. An emphasis on numeric estimates, models, and diagrams... (read more)

The next PauseAI UK protest will be (AFAIK) the first coalition protest between different AI activist groups, the main other group being Pull the Plug, a new organisation focused primarily on current AI harms. It will almost certainly be the largest protest focused exclusively on AI to date.

In my experience, the vast majority of people in AI safety are in favor of big-tent coalition protests on AI in theory. But when faced with the reality of working with other groups who don't emphasize existential risk, they have misgivings. So I'm curious what people he... (read more)

Consider adopting the term o-risk.

William MacAskill has recently been writing a bunch about how if you’re a Long-Termist, it’s not enough merely to avoid the catastrophic outcomes. Even if we get a decent long-term future, it may still fall far short of the best future we could have achieved. This outcome — of a merely okay future, when we could have had a great future — would still be quite tragic.

Which got me thinking: EAs already have terms like x-risk (for existential risks, or things which could cause human extinction) and s-risk (for suffering risks,... (read more)

might want to check out this (only indirectly related but maybe useful). 

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zuQeTaqrjveSiSMYo/a-proposed-hierarchy-of-longtermist-concepts
 

Personally don't mind o-risk think it has some utility but s-risk ~somewhat seems like it still works here. An O-risk is just a smaller scale s-risk no?
 

Thanks to everyone who voted for our next debate week topic! Final votes were locked in at 9am this morning. 

We can’t announce a winner immediately, because the highest karma topic (and perhaps some of the others) touches on issues related to our politics on the EA Forum policy. Once we’ve clarified which topics we would be able to run, we’ll be able to announce a winner. 

Once we have, I’ll work on honing the exact wording. I’ll write a post with a few options, so that you can have input into the exact version we end up discussing. 

PS: ... (read more)

Showing 3 of 6 replies (Click to show all)
4
Toby Tremlett🔹
Thanks for the comments @Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 @NickLaing @Aaron Gertler 🔸 @Ben Stevenson. This is all useful to hear. I should have an update later this month.

Nice one @Toby Tremlett🔹 . If the forum dictators decide that the democratically selected topic of democratic backsliding is not allowed, I will genuinely be OK with that decision ;).

17
Clara Torres Latorre 🔸
I think allowing this debate to happen would be a fantastic opportunity to put our money where our mouth is regarding not ignoring systemic issues: https://80000hours.org/2020/08/misconceptions-effective-altruism/#misconception-3-effective-altruism-ignores-systemic-change On the other hand, deciding that democratic backsliding is off limits, and not even trying to have a conversation about it, could (rightfully, in my view) be treated as evidence of EA being in an ivory tower and disconnected from the real world.

Consultancy Opportunities – Biological Threat Reduction 📢📢📢


The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) is looking for two consultants to support the implementation of the Fortifying Institutional Resilience Against Biological Threats (FIRABioT) Project in Africa.  Supported by Global Affairs Canada's Weapons Threat Reduction Program, this high-impact initiative aims to support WOAH Members in strengthening capacities to prevent, detect, prepare, respond and recover from biological threats. The project also supports the implementation of th... (read more)

Load more