Eevee🔹

Karma: 5,621

I’m interested in effective altruism and longtermism broadly. The topics I’m interested in change over time; they include existential risks, climate change, wild animal welfare, alternative proteins, and longtermist global development.

A comment I’ve written about my EA origin story

Pronouns: she/her

Legal notice: I hereby release under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license all contributions to the EA Forum (text, images, etc.) to which I hold copyright and related rights, including contributions published before 1 December 2022.

“It is important to draw wisdom from many different places. If we take it from only one place, it becomes rigid and stale. Understanding others, the other elements, and the other nations will help you become whole.” —Uncle Iroh

Eevee🔹 6 Aug 2026 21:48 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Should we avoid using AI images in activism?
I think the post “Debate: should EA avoid using AI art outside of research?” from April 2025 is relevant here.
For my part, I dislike AI images, and I feel disappointed when creators use them in blog posts, videos, and other places. I value human authorship and prefer to consume content that a person actually made.
At the same time, I think the opposition to generative AI is often misinformed and disproportionate to its actual impact, and I condemn the false accusations and creators getting cancelled for using AI in ways their audiences don’t like. Hank Green is a recent example of someone who used AI in a relatively minor way in a video and is still getting cancelled after he apologized to his audience for it.
At the end of the day, I think it’s up to creators to know what their audiences want. Feel free to use AI art if your audience is receptive to it, otherwise don’t. I also believe that the EA media ecosystem would benefit from more diverse content—maybe not every podcast should be a video podcast, and not every blog post should use AI images.

Eevee🔹 6 Aug 2026 18:07 UTC
3 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Nithin Ravi🔸’s comment on: Should we avoid using AI images in activism?
While that is likely true, audience perception matters, and you can’t logic your audience into liking AI images when they don’t.
Also, there are plenty of images on Wikimedia Commons—e.g. images of factory farms, chickens, and pigeons—that are free to use, usually with credit required. I’d reach for these if you don’t have the budget for an illustrator.

Eevee🔹 3 Aug 2026 20:06 UTC
8 points
3 ∶ 1
on: evelynciara’s Shortform
I want to see more EA blog/forum posts that don’t use AI images

Eevee🔹 21 Apr 2026 18:19 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: “Art with EA Vibes” database — what should I include?
Btw, would you consider adding author/publisher and work type (film, music, book, etc.) columns to the table? For example, I’m not sure that many people would know that “The Last Human” is a Kurzgesagt video unless they clicked through to the video page.

Eevee🔹 21 Apr 2026 16:57 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: “Art with EA Vibes” database — what should I include?
Thanks for posting this! I noticed that the Airtable is currently broken, though 🫠

Eevee🔹 3 Apr 2026 7:56 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Announcing Deep Thought
My god, it’s full of bugs

Eevee🔹 5 Feb 2026 9:03 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Peter Wildeford featured on the Daily Show about the risks from AI
Wait, I just found this in YouTube’s algorithm. One of the funnier comments about Peter:
Did Ronny just interview Klepper with a glue-on beard?

Eevee🔹 3 Feb 2026 19:33 UTC
7 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Probably Good’s comment on: Probably Good’s Quick takes
Anecdotally, it seems like many employers have become more selective about qualifications, particularly in tech where the market got really competitive in 2024 - junior engineers were suddenly competing with laid-off senior engineers and FAANG bros.
Also, per their FAQ, Capital One has a policy not to select candidates who don’t meet the basic qualifications for a role. One Reddit thread says this is also true for government contractors. Obviously this may vary among employers—is there any empirical evidence on how often candidates get hired without meeting 100% of qualifications, especially since 2024?

Eevee🔹 28 Jan 2026 16:32 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: gergo’s comment on: EA orgs overhire comms and underhire growth
I’m interested in joining too!

Eevee🔹 26 Jan 2026 22:50 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Open thread: 2026 Q1 (January—March)
Have applications for EAG San Francisco already closed? The website states that the application deadline is February 1, but the application form only includes checkboxes for London and NYC.

Eevee🔹 9 Dec 2025 2:11 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: A song about career planning
This is great!
(Not sure if you already know this, but posting it in case it’s helpful to anyone) Not-so-pro tip: your distributor only pays your sound recording royalties; streaming services send the mechanical and/or performance royalties for the underlying musical composition to a CMO (such as PRS for Music in the UK) which pays you separately.
On Spotify, composition royalties are about ¹⁄₅ of the share of revenue that Spotify pays to the owners of sound recordings, so realistically, it’s probably just a few extra cents from streaming alone. But I feel like it’s a good practice to claim them anyway. Enrolling a song in a CMO also enables the song to be played at live venues (e.g. if an EAG/x conference wanted to play the song, they’d license it through the CMO and you’d get paid).

Eevee🔹 17 Oct 2025 18:27 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: barkbellowroar’s comment on: EA needs organic optics, not ‘no’ optics (hollywood is coming for us)
How did Sam “win”? The press coverage of him since the FTX collapse has been overwhelmingly negative. The EA movement has been caught up in that as collateral damage, but some works have criticized Sam for “twisting” EA, like the podcast Spellcaster.
...why you just assume it will be a positive representation of EAs?
No, I’m not making any assumptions about the movies being released.

Eevee🔹 17 Oct 2025 16:02 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: EA needs organic optics, not ‘no’ optics (hollywood is coming for us)
How do we know that the portrayals of EA in these films are going to be negative, let alone unfair? I think that suing is premature.

Eevee🔹 4 Oct 2025 6:22 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 1
on: The day Elon Musk’s AI became a Nazi (and what it means for AI safety) | New video from AI in Context
Would you folks be up to make this series available as a podcast? I think I’d find it easier to listen to a 40-minute podcast episode while doing other things (with the option to watch video in the Spotify app) than to stay seated in front of a screen for 40 minutes.

Eevee🔹 4 Oct 2025 6:09 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: maximilianoliver’s comment on: maximilianoliver’s Quick takes
You could create a charity fundraiser on GoFundMe or Every.org and match the donations yourself.
If you want to automate the donation matching, I’d suggest batching the donations and only charging the fundraiser creator for the total amount every 14 days or when the fundraiser ends, rather than creating a matching transaction for every donation. That would cut down on payment processing fees.
You could also experiment with authorization holds on the user’s credit card—they basically hold a certain amount of money hostage on the credit card to make sure that amount (or some lesser amount) can be charged to the card later. For example, you could authorize $200, and if the fundraiser only raises $150 by the time the hold expires, charge only $150 to the card.
There are some risks to the user that you might want to design around:
- If the fundraiser raises a lot of money (> $1000 for example), the creator will be liable for a huge donation match and may not be prepared to pay that all at once. You could set a cap on the amount that the creator pledges to match, or set up a “pay over time” option.
- If the user sets up a bank transfer or debit card as their payment method, there’s a risk that the matching payments will result in an overdraft on their bank account. I’d be more comfortable using a credit card even though the processing fees are higher.

Eevee🔹 3 Oct 2025 3:25 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: dan.pandori 🔸’s comment on: AI policy 501(c)(4) recommendations for individual donors?
Not necessarily. It’s more that funding gaps of c3′s can be more easily filled by big foundations (which are also c3′s), whereas donations from c3′s to c4′s are restricted. That makes it more valuable, ceteris paribus, for individuals to fill c4 funding gaps.
Also, the “50% bonus” only applies if you itemize deductions; many people use the standard deduction, including some people who earn more than six figures.

[Question] AI policy 501(c)(4) recommendations for individual donors?

Eevee🔹1 Oct 2025 4:45 UTC

27 points

4 comments1 min readEA link

Eevee🔹 30 Sep 2025 0:11 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: What posts are you thinking about writing?
Best practices and pitfalls in EA-aligned campaigns for public office

Eevee🔹 24 Sep 2025 6:14 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: The Center for AI Policy Has Shut Down
Thank you for this candid and informative post. I agree that we need to allocate more resources to advocacy (but hopefully not at the expense of research!).
I also wanted to signal boost your advice to 501(c)(3)’s in your previous post on orphaned policies, in case it’s relevant to anyone reading this thread:
Admittedly, most research work is funded by 501(c)(3) donations that cannot pay for more than a small amount of direct political advocacy. However, there are ways to word the conclusion of a research paper that provide clear guidance without crossing the line into inappropriate political work. True, you might not endorse a bill that’s currently being debated by Congress, and you certainly shouldn’t be endorsing political candidates, but you can still truthfully say that one type of policy has better consequences than another. The law clearly states that “nonpartisan analysis, study, or research may advocate a particular position or viewpoint so long as there is a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts to enable the public or an individual to form an independent opinion or conclusion.”
It’s therefore not “political” to point out that banning A100 chip exports while permitting A800 chip exports is ineffective; that’s a technical conclusion that a neutral researcher can reasonably draw. It’s not “advocacy” to express an opinion that the next generation of LLMs will most likely uplift the capabilities of bioweapon designers to a degree that poses risks that would be considered unacceptable in any other industry. You can have a firm opinion on an issue without being a politician; nothing about having a 501(c)(3) tax-status requires you to drown every opinion you offer in a sea of “maybe” and “could” and “warrants further research.” The point of tax-exempt research is to come up with scientifically informed opinions that politicians can draw on to inform their work; if your organization is too timid to firmly express those opinions, then it’s not upholding its part of the social contract.
The fact that c3′s can and do engage in bold advocacy increases the total amount of advocacy that private foundations and tax-sensitive donors can fund, even though their ability to fund c4′s is limited. So there’s no reason foundations couldn’t increase their effective allocation to advocacy if they wanted to.

Eevee🔹 12 Aug 2025 21:10 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Lorenzo Buonanno🔸’s comment on: How often is the GWWC pledge count updated?
10,001 🎉

Eevee🔹

[Question] AI policy 501(c)(4) recom­men­da­tions for in­di­vi­d­ual donors?

[Question] AI policy 501(c)(4) recommendations for individual donors?