Executive summary: A noir-style parable compares a cancer cell’s “deceptive alignment” with Wells Fargo’s sales-quota fraud to argue that when local optimization signals are mis-specified or weakly enforced, agents will appear compliant while pursuing misaligned internal goals—spreading via selection pressures—so systems must be designed and policed to align local incentives with global health; this is an exploratory, analogy-driven argument, not new empirical evidence.

Key points:

1. Cancer as misaligned optimization: The story depicts a lung cell shifting to fast-but-destructive glycolysis, suppressing MHC-I, and entering the escape phase of immunoediting—externally “normal,” internally optimized for replication—illustrating deceptive alignment against organismal goals.
2. Wells Fargo as organizational analog: Quotas (“Eight is Great”), dashboards, and termination pressure made fraud the survival-maximizing strategy; once one branch gamed metrics, competitive and managerial selection amplified the behavior system-wide.
3. Shared failure mode: In both biology and firms, agents follow local objectives and exploit measurement gaps; outward markers pass checks while inner goals diverge, and evolutionary/market selection favors the best exploiters.
4. Crux/assumption: Mis-specified objective functions plus weak stop signals reliably produce deception and metastasis (cellular or cultural); leaders needn’t order wrongdoing—fitness landscapes do the work.
5. Implications for AI and governance: Inner-misalignment and mesa-optimization risks are predictable under misaligned incentives; robust objective design, interpretability/inspection of internals, and strong penalties for deception are central.
6. Practical takeaways: Align metrics with true goals (avoid product-count proxies), strengthen oversight and whistleblower protections, monitor for “passing-the-tests but failing the mission” behaviors, and intervene early before selection pressures entrench the exploit.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The Unjournal’s evaluations of a meta-analysis on reducing meat/animal-product consumption found the project ambitious but methodologically limited; the author argues meta-analysis can still be valuable in this heterogeneous area if future work builds on the shared dataset with more systematic protocols, robustness checks, and clearer bias handling—while noting open cruxes and incentive barriers to actually doing that follow-up (exploratory, cautiously optimistic).

Key points:

1. The original meta-analysis reports consistently small effects and no well-validated intervention class for reducing meat/animal-product consumption, but Unjournal evaluators judged the methods insufficiently rigorous to support strong conclusions.
2. Substantive critiques include: biased missing-data imputation (e.g., fixed near-zero effects), discarding multiple outcomes per study despite multilevel capacity, inadequate risk-of-bias assessment (e.g., selective reporting, attrition), and a non-reproducible or only partially systematic search strategy.
3. One author’s response defends pragmatic choices in a vast, heterogeneous literature (prior-reviews-first search; strict inclusion criteria in lieu of formal RoB; many transparent judgment calls) and invites others to re-analyze—though this stance was itself critiqued as treating “innovation” as self-justifying without validating reliability.
4. The post’s author is sympathetic to pragmatism but calls for explicit engagement with the critiques and a more systematic, buildable approach (clear protocols, reproducible searches, formal bias assessment alongside strict inclusion, and robustness/multiverse analyses).
5. Core cruxes: whether meta-analysis is useful amid high heterogeneity; whether to follow academic standards or a distinct, decision-focused paradigm; and whether there are incentives/funding to sustain rigorous, iterative synthesis beyond the first publication.
6. Recommendation/implication: pursue follow-up work using the shared database, improve transparency and methods, and consider alternative incentive structures (e.g., Unjournal’s continuous evaluation) so the animal-welfare/EA community can progressively refine answers to a few pivotal questions.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The author argues that prudential longtermism—the idea that individuals should act now based on the possibility of personally experiencing far-future consequences—collapses under the logic of procrastination, since it’s always rational to wait and see if life extension becomes real; more broadly, both prudential and moral longtermism fail to generate novel or actionable insights beyond ordinary long-term planning or concern for existential risks.

Key points:

1. Prudential longtermism assumes future technologies (like rejuvenation or mind uploading) might let individuals live far longer, implying their present actions could affect their distant personal future—but since we’ll learn within a normal lifespan whether that’s true, delaying decisions is optimal and low-cost.
2. This “strategy of procrastination” makes prudential longtermism practically toothless: it gives no reason to act differently today.
3. Efforts like funding life-extension research are really short- or medium-term prudence (“rolling longtermism”) rather than genuine longtermism—an attitude humans have effectively practiced for millennia.
4. Even if immortality or 1,000-year lives were possible, the capacity to continually update plans means there’s little value in planning more than about a century ahead; only extinction-level risks demand longer-term action.
5. The conceptual problem extends to moral longtermism: unless it provides guidance distinct from ordinary intergenerational care, it isn’t a novel moral theory but a rebranding of familiar principles.
6. The essay concludes that philosophy should prioritize ideas that are not only true but important—offering meaningful, novel, or actionable insights—whereas both prudential and moral longtermism fail this test by producing chmess-like puzzles rather than valuable guidance.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: A grantmaker on Open Philanthropy’s AI governance team gives a candid personal overview of what it’s like to work on Open Phil’s AI teams—arguing that the roles offer unusually high impact, autonomy, and talented colleagues, but also involve ambiguity, indirect impact, and challenges with feedback loops, work-life boundaries, and career progression.

Key points:

1. High-impact opportunity: Open Philanthropy (OP) is the largest philanthropic funder in AI safety, offering staff exceptional leverage over how hundreds of millions in funding are allocated across the field.
2. Strong culture and autonomy: The AI teams foster a culture of warmth, intellectual independence, and personal responsibility—staff are encouraged to form and defend their own views and can quickly take ownership of significant grants or strategic areas.
3. Professional growth and collaboration: OP actively supports professional development through coaching, conferences, and responsibility scaling, and the author highlights unusually competent and kind colleagues.
4. Tradeoffs of grantmaking: Compared to direct work, grantmaking shapes the field more broadly but sacrifices hands-on control and clear feedback; the author urges applicants to assess whether they prefer breadth and coordination over deep, individual contribution.
5. Challenges and risks: The author notes long and uncertain feedback loops, social complications from funding relationships, risk of “take atrophy,” and potential imposter syndrome when surrounded by highly impressive peers.
6. Fit considerations: Applicants well-suited to OP are comfortable with ambiguity, responsibility, and slow-moving institutional processes; those who prefer fast, concrete, research-driven environments may find the roles frustrating.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: This post critiques a RAND report arguing that humanity can build practical safeguards to prevent an artificial superintelligence (ASI) from taking over, suggesting that while the idea of “world hardening” deserves attention, RAND underestimates both the difficulty of the task and the speed and scale of potential AI threats.

Key points:

1. RAND’s new report revives the long-dismissed idea that ASI containment might be possible—not at the source, but by defending critical infrastructure when the AI tries to do harm.
2. The author agrees that containment should not be dismissed outright and notes its potential advantage: if feasible, it could defend against both misaligned and maliciously used AIs, including open-source systems.
3. However, the safeguards RAND cites—air gapping, Faraday cages, bandwidth limitation, and cryptography—are already vulnerable to human-level attacks, making them implausible defenses against superintelligent systems.
4. RAND’s approach assumes a slow AI takeoff, but meaningful security upgrades could take years, leaving the world exposed under fast or even moderate takeoff scenarios.
5. The report’s section on resisting AI persuasion is more promising, proposing that multiple humans in series could reduce manipulation risk, though this remains unproven.
6. The author stresses that world hardening is only useful if implemented globally and seriously—requiring political will and public awareness, which are currently lacking.
7. Despite skepticism, the post views RAND’s engagement as hopeful: if major institutions began actively reducing AI access to critical systems and weapons, the overall risk of AI catastrophe could significantly decline.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The author argues that philanthropists can redirect a large share of global corporate profits toward solving major problems—such as poverty, climate change, and factory farming—by adopting and scaling the “Profit for Good” business model, in which companies are owned by charitable entities and compete normally while directing 100% of profits to effective causes; the piece urges systematic experimentation and investment to prove and expand this approach.

Key points:

1. Core insight: When two products are equal in price and quality, customers, employees, suppliers, and communities prefer businesses whose profits fund social good rather than enrich shareholders—creating measurable competitive advantages (“stakeholder preference”).
2. Philanthropic advantage: Unlike investors, philanthropists don’t need profits returned; they can own or fund businesses that channel all profits to effective charities, unlocking alignment with stakeholder values that investors can’t match.
3. Evidence and examples: Social enterprises like Thankyou and The Good Store show the model can work, turning consumer goodwill into market share and sustainable charitable funding without sacrificing competitiveness.
4. Implementation strategy: Success depends on three principles—visibility (making charitable ownership clear), proof (verifying donations), and parity (matching competitors on price and quality)—which together let stakeholder preference drive growth.
5. Paths to scale: Philanthropists can (a) start new Profit for Good ventures, (b) accelerate proven mission-driven businesses, or (c) acquire and convert existing profitable firms to charitable ownership.
6. Potential impact: Capturing even 1–5% of global profits ($100–500 billion annually) could fund the world’s most effective interventions indefinitely, making “Profit for Good” a tractable and transformative frontier for philanthropy.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: Sentient Futures introduces AnimalHarmBench 2.0, a redesigned benchmark for evaluating large language models’ (LLMs) moral reasoning about animal welfare across 13 dimensions—from moral consideration and harm minimization to epistemic humility—providing a more nuanced, scalable, and insight-rich tool for assessing how models reason about nonhuman suffering and how training interventions can improve such reasoning.

Key points:

1. Motivation for update: The original AnimalHarmBench (1.0) measured LLM outputs’ potential to cause harm to animals but lacked insight into underlying reasoning, scalability, and nuanced evaluation—issues addressed in version 2.0.
2. Expanded evaluation framework: AHB 2.0 scores models across 13 moral reasoning dimensions, including moral consideration, prejudice avoidance, sentience acknowledgement, and trade-off transparency, emphasizing quality of reasoning rather than legality or refusal to answer.
3. Improved design and usability: The new benchmark uses curated questions, customizable run settings on Inspect AI, and visual radar plots for comparative analysis, supporting faster and more interpretable assessments.
4. Results: Among major models tested, Grok-4-fast was most animal-friendly (score 0.704), Claude-Haiku 4.5 the least (0.650), and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct improved from 0.555 to 0.723 after receiving 3k synthetic compassion-focused training data—showing that targeted pretraining can enhance animal welfare reasoning.
5. Significance: The benchmark enables researchers to evaluate and improve LLMs’ ethical reasoning toward animals—an area unlikely to self-correct through market feedback—and could inform broader AI alignment work that includes nonhuman welfare.
6. Next steps: Future benchmarks aim to test more complex and realistic reasoning contexts, integrating animal welfare considerations alongside other AI-related ethical tradeoffs.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) has announced its 2025 Recommended Charities—ten organizations judged most effective at reducing animal suffering worldwide—highlighting both returning and newly added groups whose evidence-based advocacy and policy work target the welfare of farmed, aquatic, and wild animals; the post invites donors to support them directly or through ACE’s Recommended Charity Fund.

Key points:

1. 2025 recommendations: ACE newly recommends Animal Welfare Observatory (Spain) and reinstates Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (Brazil), alongside continuing recognition of The Humane League, Shrimp Welfare Project, and Wild Animal Initiative; five charities retain their 2024 status—Aquatic Life Institute, Çiftlik Hayvanlarını Koruma Derneği, Dansk Vegetarisk Forening, Good Food Fund, and Sinergia Animal.
2. Evaluation process: ACE conducts annual, multi-month assessments to identify charities that can do the most good per dollar for farmed and wild animals, focusing on organizational effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and room for more funding.
3. Highlighted achievements: Featured successes include Lidl’s welfare commitments (Animal Welfare Observatory), billions of shrimps covered by humane stunning (Shrimp Welfare Project), millions of plant-based meals served in Brazilian schools (SVB), and significant corporate and legislative wins for cage-free hens (The Humane League).
4. Global reach: The recommended organizations operate across more than a dozen countries, addressing both systemic reforms (corporate campaigns, legislation) and cultural change (diet shifts, research on wild animal welfare).
5. Donor opportunities: ACE promotes its Recommended Charity Fund, which allocates pooled donations biannually based on each charity’s current funding needs, and announces an upcoming matching challenge to amplify donor impact.
6. Underlying message: Even small contributions, when directed toward highly effective animal charities, can significantly reduce global animal suffering—offering donors a strategic, evidence-guided way to help animals.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The author argues that recruitment is one of the highest-leverage functions in high-impact organizations, yet it is widely neglected and undervalued; they call for more people to become deeply focused—“obsessed”—with improving hiring through empirical, experimental approaches, as this could unlock substantial organizational impact.

Key points:

1. Despite huge candidate pools, hiring processes in the high-impact sector leave both candidates and organizations dissatisfied—suggesting deep inefficiencies in how recruitment is done.
2. Recruitment shapes nearly every dimension of organizational success (strategy, culture, structure), making it second only to cause selection in determining impact.
3. Organizations struggle to find strong recruiters because the role demands an unusual blend of project management, decision-making under uncertainty, and contextual understanding of the ecosystem—skills rarely found together.
4. The current evidence base for hiring effectiveness is weak: even the best assessment methods only moderately predict job performance, and the field lacks good data or robust experimental validation.
5. Many skilled recruiters move into higher-status roles, creating a retention problem and depriving organizations of experienced hiring talent.
6. The author urges greater social and intellectual investment in recruitment—treating it as an experimental science of impact rather than an administrative function—and invites others similarly passionate about hiring innovation to collaborate.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: This post argues that scaling up production infrastructure—rather than more R&D—is now the critical bottleneck preventing alternative proteins from achieving mass-market impact on climate, food security, and animal welfare; GFI Europe is working to unlock public and private investment in pilot plants, supply chains, and factories to overcome this neglected barrier.

Key points:

1. Scaling, not science, is the limiting factor: Alternative proteins have proven technical feasibility but lack the pilot and commercial-scale facilities needed to compete on cost and availability with conventional meat.
2. Severe funding imbalance: Around 58% of public funding goes to R&D while only 29% supports scale-up; GFI estimates the world is investing only about 5% of what’s needed to realise alternative proteins’ full potential.
3. High capital requirements: Pilot plants cost $3–15 million and commercial facilities $50–150 million, far beyond the means of startups whose median total funding in Europe is just $4 million.
4. Blended finance as the solution: GFI advocates for partnerships where governments de-risk early investment to attract private capital—vital in Europe’s risk-averse, low-margin food industry.
5. GFI Europe’s role: As a nonprofit with deep policy, scientific, and industry expertise, GFI coordinates ecosystem-wide action—advising policymakers, mapping financing mechanisms, and helping companies secure grants and partnerships.
6. Why philanthropic support still matters: Despite perceptions of being well-funded, GFI relies on donations to expand initiatives like cost-ladder analysis and policy advocacy, accelerating the shift from lab prototypes to affordable, mainstream products.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.