Clara Torres Latorre 🔸

Karma: 343

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 1 May 2026 14:17 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Egalitarianism Is False
Hi,
I care instrumentally, because it may impact negative on the welfare of other people.

And yes, I agree that this is totally compatible with rejecting egalitarianism and prioritarianism, but it’s not so obvious.

I was trying to illustrate why I think many people endorse some sort of egalitarianism and have thoughts like “inequality bad”, which are easy to confuse with “inequality intrinsically bad”.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 1 May 2026 13:14 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Egalitarianism Is False
I have another intuition for egalitarianism: the distribution of power.
Most resources in our world can be traded for influence/power, such as money, time and materials.
Therefore, in the real scenarios that guide our intuitions, inequality is associated with concentration of power.
To put it in a charicature example: I don’t care if TechnoBro 3000 celebrates his birthday in the asteroid belt with his 10^30 gold plated robot friends, but I do care if he can buy the elections of Democratistan.

This is not a rebuttal of the narrow definition of egalitarianism, but is close enough to work as an intuition pump if we are not being very theoretical.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 1 May 2026 11:15 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Denkenberger🔸’s comment on: P(doom) ranges from 10% to 99% depending on who you ask. I searched 1,259 hours of AI safety podcasts to map the actual disagreements.
Maybe because P(doom) ranges from 10% to 99% excludes many people that state a lower P(doom) or refuse to state a number.

Maybe because Will MacAskill sits at 10–20%, calling himself “optimistic today” — but notes this is among the lowest estimates in serious circles implies people that state a lower number are not serious.

Those were my reasons to think of downvoting. In the end I didn’t do it because at the time the post was already in the negatives.

There is a huge selection bias coming into play here, where people that appear in AI safety podcasts or use the expression P(doom) have self-selected for higher numbers than people that don’t, and this is not addressed in the post.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 29 Apr 2026 17:24 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: HPV in Low Income Countries—An Important Cause Area for EA
Questions:
How does your estimate of $800 per DALY compare to other more established interventions such as insecticide treated bednets and vitamin A supplementation?
Do you have any cost effectiveness numbers for screening?

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 29 Apr 2026 17:12 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Katharina Hofmann’s comment on: Why better arguments don‘t necessarily change minds
Oh, I understand.
Unfortunately my German is not that good and I’m worried that an AI translation would cause some of the problems that I said earlier.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 29 Apr 2026 16:11 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Katharina Hofmann’s comment on: Why better arguments don‘t necessarily change minds
Yes, I meant in terms of style, but also in the sense that AI adds filler and obfuscates how ideas relate to each other.
Can you link the paper here?

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 29 Apr 2026 14:06 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Why better arguments don‘t necessarily change minds
I think you raise great points.
I also think the AI is too much in this one, and you could cut it a bunch and it would improve a lot.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 27 Apr 2026 23:34 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Mihkel Viires 🔹’s comment on: Forecasting is Way Overrated, and We Should Stop Funding It
Random tangent: tobacco advertising also legal in Andorra

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 27 Apr 2026 17:04 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Measuring epistemic phase transitions in LLMs: the Epistemic Curie Temperature (open data, 7 models)
I had to open the preprint to understand the post.
Your analogy to ferromagnetism/superconductivity is superfluous, it’s just comparing a sigmoid to another sigmoid for aesthetic purposes.
And your claims about MI_epistemic being a measure of distance to safe AGI need to be toned down to be taken seriously.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 23 Apr 2026 18:14 UTC
1 point
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Elaine Perlman’s comment on: From Scarcity to Abundance: What the End Kidney Deaths Act Teaches Us About Spending at Scale
I like your point
“Even when funding is abundant, poorly designed systems can still produce scarcity.”
This is a real concern, even more if EA funding grows faster than the infrastructure to spend the money wisely.
But.
I think you used too much chatGPT to the point where it’s not an editorial tool and it compromised the intelligibility of the post.
Afaiu, you have 2 main points in your post:
- Kidney deaths as a case study on how money is not the only bottleneck.
- CTA: please support our petition.
Both reasonable and interesting. But hard to parse from the AI aesthetic fillers.
And also, the Manifund post explicitly asks for how to / what systems we need to navigate having more money. I think you are preaching to the choir when you say that systems can be more important than sheer amounts of money.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 22 Apr 2026 17:38 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
on: From Scarcity to Abundance: What the End Kidney Deaths Act Teaches Us About Spending at Scale
I have mixed feelings on this post:
On the one hand, the case for compensating donors is compelling and seems well supported.
However, the AI style of the prose makes the arguments sound weaker, because we are developing antibodies to this kind of text after having been exposed to AI slop in other parts.
Also, I think “effective altruism is preparing for a world with far more money” is a non sequitur. There are problems in the world that we know how to solve with money, that doesn’t mean the prevalent opinion is that money is the only constraint. People talk frequently about talent and coordination as bottlenecks.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 19 Apr 2026 20:49 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Applying Digital Marketing and Growth Hacking to EA Outreach: Opportunities and Risks
Hi, welcome to the EA Forum.
There are some very interesting takes about marketing in EA here:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/topics/marketing?sortedBy=new
My input is:
In general, there is no EA canon guidelines telling you what you should do, there is lots of debate and different points of view.
I’m telling you this because when I first found EA I had very complicated questions and was hoping to EA to provide simple answers for them, not sure if you resonate with this but sharing it for if it applies to you.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 9 Apr 2026 20:54 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Tandena Wagner’s comment on: Clara Torres Latorre ️’s Quick takes
I would say I have a tendency to go with the crowd, yes, so voting in the same direction that is already there.
Which is the contrary as minding the current voting status as you suggest.
I think this (the first one) is a failure mode.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 9 Apr 2026 19:04 UTC
4 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Toby Tremlett🔹’s comment on: Clara Torres Latorre ️’s Quick takes
I would say doing the opposite would be a problem, like upvoting something partly because it has positive karma so “this must be valuable”.
I’m not actively doing this nor endorsing it, I just caught myself having this reflex.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 9 Apr 2026 10:14 UTC
8 points
5 ∶ 2
on: Clara Torres Latorre ️’s Quick takes
Just noticed that I tend to up/downvote and agree/disagree vote more or less depending on what the current vote count is at.
Standard herding bias at work.
Hoping that saying it out loud will make it weaker, and maybe other people can relate.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 6 Apr 2026 19:24 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: A simple idea for making donation matching counterfactual
What I don’t like about this is that the mecanism would be unintuitive for many people. Also the vibes are off.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 25 Mar 2026 9:00 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Gergely Máté’s comment on: The Case For a Broader Charity Portfolio
Mutual funds underperform in an environment where arbitrage exists and prices are at least close to efficient.
Indices don’t select the “best performing” companies, they usually select the “biggest” companies. Here the analogy to the charity world breaks.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 25 Mar 2026 8:57 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Gergely Máté’s comment on: The Case For a Broader Charity Portfolio
I agree that we don’t need to (and usually don’t) play those zero-sum games. The problem is that those zero-sum games are the mechanism for price discovery, and we don’t have market price signals in the charity world.
I agree with your point about diversification reducing risk. This is true for empirical uncertainty and for value uncertainty sometimes. If you have a convex utility function, reducing risk has positive expected value, if not, then no.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 24 Mar 2026 15:22 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Can we “align” AI by governing the numbers it pushes?
This reminds me of Simplex Architecture, which seems well established in the literature.
And projecting onto a convex body is alright I guess but doesn’t need to be the best depending on the application.

Clara Torres Latorre 🔸 23 Mar 2026 13:19 UTC
4 points
2 ∶ 0
on: The Case For a Broader Charity Portfolio
I don’t see how this could work.
Investing in an index benefits from prices being good proxies for expected returns, because bringing information to the market is rewarded.
In a liquid market, buying pushes prices up, and selling pushes them down, so if something is mispriced it can be arbitraged away for a profit.
In charity, this is not happening. If research shows that charity A is 10x effective charity B (even with error bars), people don’t switch until the prices (aka impact per unit funding) equalize, so the price signal that is useful for index investing is not there.