I currently lead EA funds.
Before that, I worked on improving epistemics in the EA community at CEA (as a contractor), as a research assistant at the Global Priorities Institute, on community building, and Global Health Policy.
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, opinions are my own, not my employer’s.
You can give me positive and negative feedback here.
I found this text particularly useful for working out what the program is.
When
Program Timeline: 1 December 2025 – 1 March 2026 (3 months)
Rolling applications begin 31 October 2025
If you are accepted prior to December 1st, you can get an early start with our content!
Extension options: You have the option to extend the program for yourself for up to two additional months – through to 1 June 2026. (We expect several cohort participants to opt for at least 1 month extensions)
Where
Remote, with all chats and content located on the Supercycle.org community platform
Most program events will happen in the European evenings / North American mornings. Other working groups can reach consensus on their own times.
How much
$750 per month (over 3 months)
I don’t think there’s a consensus on how the average young person should navigate the field
Yeah that sounds right, I agree that people should have a vibe “here is a take, it may work for some and not others—we’re still figuring this out” when they are giving career advice (if they aren’t already. Though I think I’d give that advice for most fieldbuilding, including AI safety so maybe that’s too low a bar.
I’m curious about whether other people who would consider themselves particularly well-informed on AI (or an “AI expert”) found these results surprising. I only skimmed the post, but I asked Claude to generate some questions based on the post for me to predict answers to, and I got a Brier score of 0.073, so I did pretty well (or at least don’t feel worried about being wildly out of touch). I’d guess that most people I work with would also do pretty well.
I didn’t check the answers, but Claude does pretty well at this kind of thing.
to be clear, these were extremely “gut” level predictions—spent about 10x more time writing this comment than I did on the whole exercise.
What % of the general public thinks AI will have a positive impact on jobs?
What % of the general public thinks AI will benefit them personally?
What % of Americans are more concerned than excited about increased AI use?
True or false: Most Americans think AI coverage in the media is overhyped/exaggerated
True or false: Younger people (under 30) are less worried about AI than seniors (65+)
What % of Americans say AI will worsen people’s ability to think creatively?
What % of the public has actually used ChatGPT?
I’m not an expert in this space; @Grace B, who I’ve spoken to a bit about this, runs the AIxBio fellowship and probably has much better takes than I do. Fwiw, I think I have a different perspective to the post.
My rough view is:
1. Historically, we have done a bad job at fieldbuilding in biosecurity (for nuanced reasons, but I guess that we made some bad calls).
2. As of a few months ago, we have started to do a much better job at fieldbuilding e.g. the AIxBio fellowship that you mentioned is ~the first of it’s kind. The other fellowships you mentioned iiuc aren’t focused on biosecurity.
3. Most people who want to enter the space are already doing sensible things—not that many people are leaving their undergrad degrees to start PPE companies, many people are doing PhDs and are figuring out what to do—seems good to focus resources on PhDs/postdocs etc. or other people with more experience, whilst that’s extremely undertapped
4. AI safety has done an extremely good job at field building over the past ~4 years. Most of it was the result of the hard work of a bunch of great people fighting hard—rather than being particularly overdetermined by ChatGPT or whatever.
5. There are, in fact, a bunch of great things that one can do in biosecurity at various levels of experience, and outside of sustained 1:1 conversations, it’s really hard for more experienced people to figure out what some specific person should do [1]. My impression is that most users of the EA Forum, based on their current skills, “could” very quickly make useful contributions to the biosecurity space, but will likely get bottlenecked on motivation, strategy, grit etc. [2] I don’t think we should have that expectation of everyone. Still, I speak to people on approximately a weekly basis who I believe could make ambitious contributions, but psych themselves out or have standards that are too low for themselves and idk whether it’s helpful to act more conservatively.
6. I’m not sure where the dishonesty is really coming from, I don’t think there is much in the way of resources/community etc. pushing people to enter the space (yet).
I’ve occasionally wondered whether someone entreprenurial should try being a “career strategist” and charge people say $1000/hour (paid back over a few years once they start a role they think is particularly useful) to help them figure out how to have an outsized impact. This might look a little like a cross between 80k career coaching/AIM (charity entrepreneurship)/exec coaching with sustained engagement over a few weeks and a lot of time outside of sessions spent researching and hustling (from both the coach and user). Part of the reason to have a large charge is (1) you want to attract people taking impact extremely seriously, and (2) this kind of coaching is probably really hard and you’d need someone great. @Nina Friedrich🔸 you come to mind as someone that could do this!
Standard disclaimer of optimising hard for impact straight away is not the same as optimising hard for impact over the course of your career. Often it is better to build skills and become insanely leveraged before going hard at the most important problems.
In your opinion, how many weeks before the event would get 80% of the value of knowing two years in advance?
In general, I think many people who have the option to join Anthropic could do more altruistically ambitious things, but career decisions should factor in a bunch of information that observers have little access to (e.g. team fit, internal excitement/motivation, exit opportunities from new role …).[1] Joe seems exceptionally thoughtful, altruistic, and earnest, and that makes me feel good about Joe’s move.
I am very excited about posts grappling with career decisions involving AI companies, and would love to see more people write them. Thank you very much for sharing it!
Others in the EA community seem more excited about AI personality shaping than I am. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be very important, though that’s an argument that rules in a bunch of random, currently unexplored projects.
I have lots of disagreements with the substance of this post, but at a more meta level, I think your post will be better received (and is a more wholesome intellectual contribution) if you change the title to “reasons against donating to Lightcone Infrastructure” which doesn’t imply that you are trying to give both sides a fair shot (though to be clear I think posts just representing one side are still valuable).
A lack of sufficiently strategic, dedicated, and ambitious altruists. Deferrence to authority figures in the EA community when people should be thinking more independently. Suboptimal status and funding allocation etc.
sorry—school for moral ambition
Quick, non-exhaustive list of places where a few strategic, dedicated, and ambitious altruists could make a significant dent within a year (because, rn, EA is significantly dropping the ball).
Improving the media, China stuff, increasing altruism, moral circle expansion, AI mass movement stuff, frontier AI lab insider coordination (within and among labs), politics in and outside the US, building up compute infrastructure outside the US, security stuff, EA/longtermist/School for Moral Ambition/other field building, getting more HNW people into EA, etc.
(List originally shared with me by a friend)
I suggested the following question for Carl Shulman a few years ago
I’d like to hear his advice for smart undergrads who want to build their own similarly deep models in important areas which haven’t been thought about very much e.g. take-off speeds, the influence of pre-AGI systems on the economy, the moral value of insects, preparing for digital minds (ideally including specific exercises/topics/reading/etc.).
I’m particularly interested in how he formed good economic intuitions, as they seem to come up a lot in his thinking/writing.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ytBxJpQsdEEmPAv9F/i-m-interviewing-carl-shulman-what-should-i-ask-him?commentId=vqrxdfNEnYioDEt4N
@Saul Munn recently asked me what my current take on this was and then suggested I share it online—it’s very lightly edited.
I think if I were to speak to my undergrad self I’d prioritise:
• reading a lot of SOTA background material (e.g. Dwarkesh podcasts on AI stuff)
• becoming literate in a bunch of seemingly useful fields (e.g. CS, math, econ, philosophy) with some bias towards things that are fun and motivating
• try to contribute to the intellectual frontier as quickly as possible (e.g. via LessWrong) on topics that seem very important
• find a community of people that care about similar stuff, ideally in person—consider starting a “better futures”, or “what to do about AGI” group.
This is pretty general advice. I might try to focus on Holden’s list Important, actionable research questions for the most important century or similar.
Yeah, I think we have a substantive disagreement. My impression before and after reading your list above is that you think that being convinced of longtermism is not very important for doing work that is stellar according to “longtermism” and it’s relatively easy to convince people that x-risk/AIS/whatever is important.
I agree with the literal claim, but think that empirically longtermists represent the bulk of people that concern themeselves with thinking clearly about how wild the future could be. I don’t think all longtermists do this, but longtermism empirically seems to provide a strong motivation for trying to think about how wild the future could be at all.
[1]
I also believe that thinking clearly about how wild the future could be is an important and often counterfactual trait for doing AIS work that I expect to actually be useful (though it’s obviously not necessary in every case). Lots of work in the name of AIS is done by non-longtermists (which is great), but at the object level, I often feel their work could have been much more impactful if they tried to think more concretely about wild AI scenarios. Ik that longermism is not about AI, and most longtermists are not actually working on AI.
So, for me the dominant question is does more longtermism writing increase or decrease the supply of people trying to think clearly about the future. Overall, I’m like … weakly increases (?) and there aren’t many other leveraged interventions for getting people think about the future.
I would be much more excited about competitions like:
1. Write branches of the AI 2027 forecast from wherever you disagree (which could be at the start).
2. Argue for features of a pre-IE society that can navigate the IE well and roadmap how we might get more of that feature or think about critical R&D challenges for navigating an IE well.
etc.
Also, somewhat unrelated to the above, but I suspect that where “philosophy” starts for me might be lower abstraction than where it starts for you. I would include things like Paul writing about what a good successor would look like, Ryan writing about why rogue AI may not kill literally everyone, etc., as “philosophy”, though I’m not arguing that either of those specific discussions is particularly important.
P.S. fwiw I don’t think the writing style in this post was particularly poor, or that you came across as grumpy
I guess there are some non-longtermist bay area people trying to do this, but I feel like most of them don’t then take very thoughtful or altruistic actions.
A few scattered points that make me think this post is directionally wrong, whilst also feeling meh about the forum competition and essays:
I agree that the essay competition doesn’t seem to have surfaced many takes that I thought were particularly interesting or action-guiding, but I don’t think that this is good evidence for “talking about longtermism not being important”.
There’s a lot of things that I would describe as “talking about longtermism” that seem important and massively underdiscussed (e.g. acausal trade and better futures-y things). I think you also think this.
The claim in the title seems about as valid as “talking about AI safety is not important” or talking about global health is not important” because most of the AI safety and global health work is relatively unimportant. That said, mean GH, AIS, and longtermist work are very important. I think that pushing the academic writing about longtermism button increases the amount of “good” longtermist writing at least a bit—though I’d be like 50x more excited about Forethought + Redwood running a similar competition on things they think are important that are still very philosophy-ish/high level.
The track record of talking about longtermism seems very strong. For example, I think it’s hard to tell a story for Open Phil’s work in AIS and biosecurity that doesn’t significantly route through “writing about longtermism”.
I feel like this post is more about “is convincing people to be longermists important” or should we just care about x-risk/AI/bio/etc. I strongly believe that most of the influential technical AIS contributors have been significantly influenced by longtermist writing, including the more philosophical aspects—though I wouldn’t be surprised if, by their lights, longtermist writing isn’t useful for the people they want to hire.
Yeah I also think hanging out in a no 1:1s area is weirdly low status/unexciting. I’d be a bit more excited about cause or interest specific areas like “talk about ambitious project ideas”.
I just returned from EAG NYC, which exceeded my expectations—it might have been the most useful and enjoyable EAG for me so far.
Ofc, it wouldn’t be an EAG without inexperienced event organisers complaining about features of the conference (without mentioning it in the feedback form), so to continue that long tradition here is an anti-1:1s take.
EAGs are focused on 1:1s to a pretty extreme degree. It’s common for my friends to have 10-15 30 minute 1:1s per day, at other conferences I’ve been to it’s generally more like 0-5. I would prefer a culture of closer to 5 1:1s per day, with half of them organised after the conference starts.
Some upsides of my imaginary system relative to the current system:
Far less tiring for attendees
Far more opportunity to use earlier conversations to inform later ones (e.g. you could have a new project idea, then talk to a collaborator about it, then secure funding all at the conference)
More opportunities for small group conversations, which are extremely hard to organise in Swapcard and, in my opinion, are much more valuable than 1:1s.
Less planning overhead, where you need to start booking meetings very early so that people still have time in their calendars (and regular pre-con visits to swapcard to see who has recently joined the platform)
Some concrete recommendations to try at the next EAG could be:
Figure out how to make group conversations easier to organise (maybe ditch swapcard and online makes their own platform??)
Block out every 2nd or 3rd session by default.
Create nice zones for spontaneous conversations (not sure how to do this well) or set up the space with more nooks for organic conversations (or maybe have high effort after parties with more of this vibe)
Encourage attendees to keep at least half the schedule free till after the first day.
I’m not sure what actions I plan to take at an individual level, it feels like it’s hard for me to realise something like the above vision just for myself. Some options that I feel pretty good about trying include:
budget 3x more time for scheduling and make more small group conversations happen
block out lots of time in swapcard (though it’s not super useful if others don’t do this too)
think of lower downside interventions and lobby the EAG team to try them out—one issue is that I’m not sure I have any interventions that result in better feedback form scores in the short-term—even if the change is better in the long term.
P.S. Thanks again to the EAG team for another excellent conference!
I’m not sure I understood the last sentence. I personally think that a bunch of areas Will mentioned (democracy, persuasion, human + AI coups) are extremely important, and likely more useful on the margin than additional alignment/control/safety work for navigating the intelligence explosion. I’m probably a bit less “aligned ASI is literally all that matters for making the future go well” pilled than you, but it’s definitely a big part of it.
I also don’t think that having higher odds of AI x-risk are a crux, though different “shapes” of intelligence explosion could be , e.g. if you think we’ll never get useful work for coordination/alignment/defense/ai strategy pre-foom then I’d be more compelled by the totalising alignment view—but I do think that’s misguided.
the AI safety group was just way more exciting and serious and intellectually alive than the EA group — this is caricatured,
Was the AIS group led by people that had EA values or were significantly involved with EA?
I’m sure it was a misunderstanding, but fwiw, in the first paragraph, I do say “positive contributors” by which I meant people having a positive impact.
I agree with some parts of your comment though it’s not particularly relevant to the thesis that most people with significant responsibility for most of the top-tier (according to my view on top tier areas for making AGI go well) have values that are much more EA like than would naively be expected.
This is great to see! I’ve enjoyed reading Gergo’s Substack and have really appreciated his work on AIS fieldbuilding—excited to see what you do with more resources!