One big cause of this problem, in my opinion, is so much of global investors money flowing into U.S. tech stocks. The U.S. receives significant net capital inflows from the rest of the world (by the way, this is one of the big reasons that the U.S. is able to run a sizeable trade deficit and not go bankrupt or suffer from hyperinflation). For example, European investors send about 300 billion euros to the U.S. to invest in stocks and bonds every year (this is something the European Commission has acknowledged as a problem for Europe’s economy). A bunch of that money (if not most of it?) goes to Nvidia, Microsoft, SpaceX, all the AI stocks, of course Anthropic and OpenAI too once they IPO. If European investors reduced their investments to America by half, to 150 billion euros, and invested the other half in Europe and elsewhere, I think that would probably be quite impactful. Remember, the most valuable product of these AI firms is not the AI models and inference, it is their stock. Elon Musk did not really become a trillionaire by selling cars and rocket launches, he did so by selling shares in his companies.
If you reduce the value of these AI companies shares and thus reduce their ability to raise capital, they will be forced to slow down their growth. (If anyone don’t believe this, just consider that European firms often say that lack of capital is one of the biggest obstacles that stops them from growing.)
Edit: of course, Mistral, which has a terrible safety culture AFAIK, would benefit from stronger European capital markets, and grow faster and bigger. But I do not how big the risk really is from a runner-up lab like Mistral compared to the Anthropics and OpenAIs of the world.
I guess ASML would also benefit somewhat, but to a lesser degree than startups like Mistral. ASML already has good access to capital, they have a €500B+ market cap and can raise all the money they want / need.
Having said that, the expected negative impact to safety from a boost to the European AI firms would IMO be offset many times over by the positive impact of reducing funding to Nvidia, Anthropic, OpenAI etc.
(I am not giving you investment advice here by the way. This is just some thoughts on whether we should try to get investors to diversify away from U.S., as a way to reduce safety risks.)
Interestingly, NIN issuance skews quite heavily towards males: 56.5 percent of NINs have been issued to men, 43.5 percent to women. In other words, men are about 30% more likely to have a NIN than women.
"We were fortunate to occupy one of the four private rooms in maternity, with running water, electricity and two beds - luxuries the 20 other NICU families did not have. Every 2 hours as we moved to the NICU to feed him, we tiptoed through and over mothers and families who lined the corridor. I was overwhelmed with guilt from two angles. First that we paid $30 a day without thought for a private room while others slept on the floor."
I am not sure if you should feel particularly guilty about this. By paying more for the private room, you probably helped the hospital fund the care for the other 20 families there, who could not pay as much.
I am not sure if the OPEC exit is directly connected with the AI stuff. Sure, leaving OPEC might give UAE more cash (because they can now sell more barrels of oil), and they could use some of that money to invest in AI data centers etc. But I really do not think that they left OPEC simply because they needed more money for AI.
The article ends by saying: "It still holds a big chunk of harder-to-sell positions in privately held companies such as Anthropic. It remains to be seen if those companies will live up to their lofty valuations if and when they hit the public markets."
I wonder if this means that the fund did not get wiped out completely - otherwise Citadel (who bought all of their publicly traded stock positions) would have also taken their Anthropic shares?
I am not sure I understand your UAE example. Are you saying that there is some delay / difference / gap between what policies / goals the UAE has set for AI and what it is really doing?
I assume that the money moved by GiveWell excludes money they received from Coefficient Giving, is that correct?
The 100% growth for GiveWell in 2025 coincided with the aid cuts. Not sure if aid cuts are the only reason for the increase in donations, but I do assume those news motivated at least some new donors to come in or existing donors to increase donation sizes. It will be interesting to see how this will change in 2026 and going forward: will these donors keep donating at the same level or higher level or will they pull back somewhat?
Thanks for putting this overview together, this is highly valuable.
Despite the real risk from hantavirus being low, it is getting covered a lot in media right now. I think this is actually good. A lot of people had already forgotten about the pandemic that we had not that long ago and moved on to worrying about other problems currently dominating the news cycle. Hopefully this serves as a (small) reminder to people that pandemic preparedness / biosecurity really does matter.
One big cause of this problem, in my opinion, is so much of global investors money flowing into U.S. tech stocks. The U.S. receives significant net capital inflows from the rest of the world (by the way, this is one of the big reasons that the U.S. is able to run a sizeable trade deficit and not go bankrupt or suffer from hyperinflation). For example, European investors send about 300 billion euros to the U.S. to invest in stocks and bonds every year (this is something the European Commission has acknowledged as a problem for Europe’s economy). A bunch of that money (if not most of it?) goes to Nvidia, Microsoft, SpaceX, all the AI stocks, of course Anthropic and OpenAI too once they IPO. If European investors reduced their investments to America by half, to 150 billion euros, and invested the other half in Europe and elsewhere, I think that would probably be quite impactful. Remember, the most valuable product of these AI firms is not the AI models and inference, it is their stock. Elon Musk did not really become a trillionaire by selling cars and rocket launches, he did so by selling shares in his companies.
If you reduce the value of these AI companies shares and thus reduce their ability to raise capital, they will be forced to slow down their growth. (If anyone don’t believe this, just consider that European firms often say that lack of capital is one of the biggest obstacles that stops them from growing.)
Edit: of course, Mistral, which has a terrible safety culture AFAIK, would benefit from stronger European capital markets, and grow faster and bigger. But I do not how big the risk really is from a runner-up lab like Mistral compared to the Anthropics and OpenAIs of the world.
I guess ASML would also benefit somewhat, but to a lesser degree than startups like Mistral. ASML already has good access to capital, they have a €500B+ market cap and can raise all the money they want / need.
Having said that, the expected negative impact to safety from a boost to the European AI firms would IMO be offset many times over by the positive impact of reducing funding to Nvidia, Anthropic, OpenAI etc.
(I am not giving you investment advice here by the way. This is just some thoughts on whether we should try to get investors to diversify away from U.S., as a way to reduce safety risks.)
Update on The National Identity Number (NIN) program: "As of August 2025, 123.5 million National Identity Numbers (NIN) have been issued to Nigerians by the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC)."
Interestingly, NIN issuance skews quite heavily towards males: 56.5 percent of NINs have been issued to men, 43.5 percent to women. In other words, men are about 30% more likely to have a NIN than women.
Does that mean the other 900+ videos will no longer be available online?
"We were fortunate to occupy one of the four private rooms in maternity, with running water, electricity and two beds - luxuries the 20 other NICU families did not have. Every 2 hours as we moved to the NICU to feed him, we tiptoed through and over mothers and families who lined the corridor. I was overwhelmed with guilt from two angles. First that we paid $30 a day without thought for a private room while others slept on the floor."
I am not sure if you should feel particularly guilty about this. By paying more for the private room, you probably helped the hospital fund the care for the other 20 families there, who could not pay as much.
I am not sure if the OPEC exit is directly connected with the AI stuff. Sure, leaving OPEC might give UAE more cash (because they can now sell more barrels of oil), and they could use some of that money to invest in AI data centers etc. But I really do not think that they left OPEC simply because they needed more money for AI.
The article ends by saying: "It still holds a big chunk of harder-to-sell positions in privately held companies such as Anthropic. It remains to be seen if those companies will live up to their lofty valuations if and when they hit the public markets." I wonder if this means that the fund did not get wiped out completely - otherwise Citadel (who bought all of their publicly traded stock positions) would have also taken their Anthropic shares?
I am not sure I understand your UAE example. Are you saying that there is some delay / difference / gap between what policies / goals the UAE has set for AI and what it is really doing?
cG has written about this: https://coefficientgiving.org/research/worldview-diversification/
Despite the real risk from hantavirus being low, it is getting covered a lot in media right now. I think this is actually good. A lot of people had already forgotten about the pandemic that we had not that long ago and moved on to worrying about other problems currently dominating the news cycle. Hopefully this serves as a (small) reminder to people that pandemic preparedness / biosecurity really does matter.