For me at least, that implies an institute founded or affiliated with somebody named Petrov, not just inspired by somebody, and it would seem slightly sketchy for it not to be.

I'd be doing less good with my life if I hadn't heard of effective altruism

The only thing I think EA has actually done counterfactually for me is encourage me to cut out eggs from my diet. I'm pretty confident that everything else I could have gotten from non-EA sources; a class my freshman year taught by somebody who afaik isn't an EA but had independently come to agree with a lot of the principles was pretty impactful on my life since it led to me changing my major.

Edit: Oh and I've won small-ish amounts of money in random Metaculus contests, which I probably heard about through EA?

I wrote up something for my personal blog about my relationship with effective altruism. It's intended for a non-EA audience - at this point my blog subscribers are mostly friends and family - so I didn't think it was worth cross posting as I spend a lot of time trying to explain what effective altruism is exactly, but some people might still be interested. My blog mostly is about books and whatnot, not effective altruism, but if I do write some more detailed stuff on effective altruism I will try to post it to the forum also.

I think this is a good analysis and I agree with your conclusions, but I have one minor point:

If younger people are disproportionately not taking jobs that are more exposed to AI, there are two possibilities:

1. They can't get the jobs because firms are using AI instead.
2. They don't try to enter those fields because they expect that there will be decreased demand due to AI.

Your claim seems to be that a decrease would be due to point 1, but I think it could be equally well due to point 2. Anecdotally, people who are interested in translation and interpretation do tend to think seriously about whether there will be declining demand due to computer systems, so I think point 2 would be plausible were we to see an effect. I might also want to compare the proportion of young workers in AI affected occupations to those in AI-proof occupations (physical labor? heavily licensed industries?) over time, to make sure that any effects aren't due to overall changes in how easy it is for young people to enter the labor force. But this is really interesting and my comments are mostly moot since we aren't seeing an effect in the main data.

There exists a cause which ought to receive >20% of the EA community’s resources but currently receives little attention

Possible candidates:

• We're severely underrating tractability and importance (specifically in terms of sentience) for wild animals
• We're severely underrating neglectedness (and maybe some other criteria?) for improving data collection in LMICs
• We're severely underrating tractability and neglectedness for some category of political interventions
• Something's very off in our model of AI ethics (in the general sense, including AI welfare)
• We're severely underrating tractability of nuclear security-adjacent topics
• There's something wrong with the usual EA causes that makes them ineffective, so we get left with more normal causes

• We have factually wrong beliefs about the outcome of some sort of process of major political change (communism? anarchism? world government?)

  None of these strike me as super likely, but combining them all you still get an okay chance.

Should EA avoid using AI art for non-research purposes?

I'm unconvinced by the arguments for first-order harms (environment, copyright) being sufficiently big, but I think it's worthwhile to send a signal that EA is anti-giving-AI-too-much-power. Also I think it's mostly mediocre, but I'm only a mild agree vote because it's not really something worth policing. Maybe this is what people mean by disagree reacting the post itself?

Hmm it seems like the Metaculus poll linked is actually on a random selection of benchmarks being arbitrarily defined as a weakly general intelligence. If I have to go with the poll resolution, I think there's a much greater chance (not going to look into how difficult the Atari game thing would be yet, so not sure how much greater).

Bioweapons are an existential risk

I don't buy the Parfitian argument, so I'm not sure what a binary yes-no about existential risk would mean to me. 

AGI by 2028 is more likely than not

I agree with a bunch of the standard arguments against this, but I'll throw in two more that I haven't seen fleshed out as much: 

1. The intuitive definition of AGI includes some physical capabilities (and even ones that nominally exclude physical capabilities probably necessitate some), and we seem really far behind on where I would expect AI systems to be in manipulating physical objects.
2. AIs make errors in systematically different ways than humans, and often have major vulnerabilities. This means we'll probably want AI that works with humans in every step, and so will want more specialized AI. I don't really buy some arguments that I've seen against this but I don't know enough to have a super confident rebuttal.

Cats' economic growth potential likely has a heavy-tailed distribution, because how else would cats knock things off shelves with their tail. As such, Open Philanthropy needs to be aware that some cats, like Tama, make much better mascots than other cats. One option would be to follow a hits-based strategy: give a bunch of areas cat mascots, and see which ones do the best. However, given the presence of animal welfare in the EA movement, hitting cats is likely to attract controversy. A better strategy would be to identify cats that already have proven economic growth potential and relocate them to areas most in need of economic growth. Tama makes up 0.00000255995% of Japan's nominal GDP (or something thereabouts, I'm assuming all Tama-related benefits to GDP occurred in the year 2020). If these benefits had occurred in North Korea, they would be 0.00086320506% of nominal GDP or thereabouts. North Korea is also poorer, so adding more money to its economy goes further. Japan and North Korea are near each other, so transporting Tama to North Korea would be extremely cheap. Assuming Tama's benefits are the same each year and are independent of location (which seems reasonable, I asked ChatGPT for an image of Tama in North Korea and it is still cute), catnapping Tama would be highly effective. One concern is that there might be downside risk, because people morally disapprove of kidnapping cats. On the other hand, people expressing moral disapproval of kidnapping cats are probably more likely to respect animal's boundaries by not eating meat, thus making this an intervention that spans cause areas. In conclusion: EA is solved, all we have to do is kidnap some cats.