Kestrel🔸

Karma: 1,532

I work as a researcher in statistical anomaly detection in live data streams. I work at Lancaster University and my research is funded by the Detection of Anomalous Structure in Streaming Settings group, which is funded by a combination of industrial funding and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (ultimately the UK Government).

There’s a very critical research problem that’s surprisingly open—if you are monitoring a noisy system for a change of state, how do you ensure that you find any change as soon as possible, while keeping your monitoring costs as low as possible?

By “low”, I really do mean low—I am interested in methods that take far less power than (for example) modern AI tools. If the computational cost of monitoring is high, the monitoring just won’t get done, and then something will go wrong and cause a lot of problems before we realise and try to fix things.

This has applications in a lot of areas and is valued by a lot of people. I work with a large number of industrial, scientific and government partners.

Improving the underlying mathematical tooling behind figuring out when complex systems start to show problems reduces existential risk. If for some reason we all die, it’ll be because something somewhere started going very wrong and we didn’t do anything about it in time. If my research has anything to say about it, “the monitoring system cost us too much power so we turned it off” won’t be on the list of reasons why that happened.

I also donate to effective global health and development interventions and support growth of the effective giving movement. I believe that a better world is eminently possible, free from things like lead pollution and neglected tropical diseases, and that everyone should be doing at least something to try to genuinely build a better world.

Kestrel🔸 4 Jul 2026 16:07 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: James Brobin’s comment on: Has Global Health Been Rigorously Compared With Other Cause Areas?
GiveWell has lots of research on evaluating programs. Check out their website and podcast, and their grant recipients.
Happier Lives Institute does a similar thing to GiveWell, but with a different moral prioritisation (and a substantially smaller budget).
Giving Green and Power for Democracies do similarly, and I think Peace Per Dollar might be starting up.
Giving What We Can has its “other supported charities” list.
Ambitious Impact has lists of EA-incubated charities (but again, this is a different thing from effective giving opportunities, as they’re often targeting other funding sources).
The EA Forum itself runs a donation election every December—you can look up last year’s.
Coefficient Giving’s website has problem area descriptions and grant dispersals.

Kestrel🔸 4 Jul 2026 7:45 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Kestrel🔸’s comment on: Has Global Health Been Rigorously Compared With Other Cause Areas?
Happier lives Institute: https://www.happierlivesinstitute.org/
EA also does democracy charity evaluation which you might want to look into https://www.powerfordemocracies.org/

Kestrel🔸 4 Jul 2026 7:39 UTC
8 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Has Global Health Been Rigorously Compared With Other Cause Areas?
Hi James! There’s actually a variety of EA-aligned charities in those areas. Some that come to mind:
- Teaching at the Right Level (Education)
- NOVAH No Violence At Home (women’s domestic abuse prevention)
- ACTRA (reducing criminality in Central America)
- Africa Jobs Fund (economic growth)
- Lafiyah Nigeria (contraceptives provision, so women’s empowerment)
They all have their own theories as to why they might be unusually effective.
As for why:
- The differing moral priorities about saving a life versus improving a life. You sound like you’d be more on board with the moral prioritisation of the Happier Lives Institute rather than GiveWell, so do check them and their recommendations out.
- Global health really has a huge funding gap. So it’s quite easily to find something that works effectively—you take a working preventative (e.g. malaria nets, chemoprevention, vaccines, vitamin supplements) and you put cash towards incentivising it / tackle supply-side issues. There’s just a lot that can be done in this space in ways that replicate. It’s quite easy to get into. A lot of other intervention types are just a lot fiddlier.
- The richer a country is, the more arguments there are that effective interventions helping citizens within it should be funded by its government. To be clear, EAs still definitely work on this stuff! But they tend to bid for government funding pots, not for effective giving money, so you hear about them less.

Kestrel🔸 3 Jul 2026 7:56 UTC
23 points
8 ∶ 0
on: Maybe do the thing you wish CEA would do
Strong upvote—too many people see CEA as an authority source on everything EA, rather than a bunch of staff the EA community pays for to do the safe, repeatable stuff.

Kestrel🔸 2 Jul 2026 20:49 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: most EAs should probably not be living in high cost-of-living (HCOL) areas most of the time
Shout-out for also living in the North of England—housing is cheap and you’re actually really near London—certainly near enough that that anything in London you particularly want to get to, you can get to.

Kestrel🔸 30 Jun 2026 17:08 UTC
8 points
1 ∶ 0
on: GWWC’s 2025 impact evaluation (executive summary)
Great job! Wonderful to see effective giving being so very back.
Also good to see 🔷 catching better metrics. I’d seen quite a lot of prior anecdotal evidence of it appearing significantly undervalued—many of the most engaged effective givers I know were 🔷 initially, which really didn’t track with the very low value attributions given previously.

Kestrel🔸 28 Jun 2026 21:05 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Chimps, Bonobos, and the Community We Could Be
To think on this more. There are basically 4 ways to be “successful” as a local EA community that has had £X worth of an EA infrastructure grant put into it.
- Career transitions with an expected value worth a £X investment.
- Inspire >£5X worth of counterfactual effective giving to the GiveWell All Grants Fund or other external effective charity. (Giving multipliers of good effective giving infrastructure opportunities are roughly 5x)
- Inspire >£X worth of counterfactual giving to EA infrastructure, or other meta opportunities that would otherwise be in receipt of EA infrastructure spending.
- Some combination of the above.
By far the easiest thing to meaningfully achieve here is actually the EA infrastructure giving target, assuming your community members aren’t cash strapped. Just keep £X low by not overspending and raise it yourself by providing your community with things of value worth paying for: a huge amount of EA content is actually quite personally valuable, be that tools for working more productively, truth seeking discipline and scout mindset development, personal satisfaction and well-being from giving effectively, learning to cook healthy vegan food as a young adult, or just a place to go to make interesting friends. On top of that, more relational altruists (e.g. people who run the church building you meet up in) may not care about supporting what you care about (e.g. malaria), but they may well end up caring a lot about supporting you, assuming you’re a bunch of nice people. This helps with cost minimisation.
In actuality you probably should be doing a combination of all these things depending on who’s turning up and why they’re engaging. Career transitions are still important! But if you don’t neglect either the opportunities for effective giving or the infrastructure fundraising/cost minimisation, you can keep your local group unambiguously “worth it” while shifting focus towards something that looks like a more genuine expression of community than something endlessly focused on career transitions that ends up being somewhat soulless.

Kestrel🔸 27 Jun 2026 10:36 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Cultivating hope: calibrating the expectations for cultivated meat to end factory farming
Assuming we end factory farming before 2100, which factor will have contributed the most?
Social and moral changes are important, but without convenient and tasty alternative meat about 60% of the population won’t listen.

Kestrel🔸 26 Jun 2026 7:24 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Donating everything—Update 2
Hi S!
It’s great to see you’re so dedicated, and also that you’re taking good care of your health. Learning to cook is one of the best things you can do as a teenager and young adult to set yourself up for a better life (that also costs you, animals and the planet less).
I recommend a site like Nutritionfacts ( https://nutritionfacts.org/ ) for accessible details of plant-based nutrition.

Kestrel🔸 25 Jun 2026 8:27 UTC
28 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Possible mistake EAs are making and shout out to Pause AI UK
For those reading this post: PauseAI UK is currently fundraising for operational expansion. If you want to donate to PauseAI UK, you can see their donor prospectus and make donations at https://pauseai.uk/donate

Kestrel🔸 18 Jun 2026 7:26 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: M. Y. Zuo’s comment on: Critique: There are not enough “realistic” topics in EA public discussion
I think my point is that there’s *already* a lot of bad advice out there. The difference between n and n+1 pieces of advice that’s bad for you being present around you shouldn’t be the thing that everything hinges on. If it is, something’s seriously off with your ability to filter and prioritise.
Take the High-Impact Professionals Playbook, for example (one might call this an “official EA advice source for exceptionally talented people”). It’s got sections on
- Career
- Donations
- Workplace initiatives
- Trusteeship
- Mentoring and Advisory
- Network and Influence
Probably, any given person will fit in on one or maybe two of these, and so all the other bits are “bad advice”. However EA assumes you’re competent at basic seeking methodology because how else would you have got interested in EA—or alternatively, tries to teach you basic seeking methodology as a core part of you becoming an EA—so by the time you’ve ended up buying the book, you probably should be capable of dipping in and out of the relevant bits of a book.
If someone is exceptionally talented in capacity, but their seeking methodology is so poor they’d be swayed by whatever advice happens to be immediately around them at any given time, EA probably *doesn’t* want them doing a bunch of the “highest-impact” stuff (particularly in AI) because they’ve got a very substantial possibility of making things worse.

Kestrel🔸 16 Jun 2026 20:51 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Giving Based on Comparative Advantage
The obvious first thing to ask is have they considered donating to the operations costs of an effective giving fundraiser team such as One for the World ( https://1fortheworld.org/ ) as a means of raising more money for the GiveWell Top Charities than they themselves would be able to donate?
Getting people to cross-cause prioritise is difficult. There’s much that can be obtained by considered within-cause prioritisation.

Kestrel🔸 11 Jun 2026 14:58 UTC
5 points
3 ∶ 4
in reply to: Mjreard’s comment on: Critique: There are not enough “realistic” topics in EA public discussion
I disagree voted, but I am not disagreeing about this happening—I am disagreeing about it being a good idea.
People who are exceptionally talented should be exceptionally capable of ignoring all the other bad advice they get, and the presence of more advice that is bad for them shouldn’t hurt them. Also they should be capable of understanding EA as a project about “the most good you can do” and be on board with solid, actionable advice for the average person being easily accessible around the place.
One of EA’s biggest failings is its community structures actively causing harm to people interested in EA, and more grounded advice would go a long way towards addressing that.

Kestrel🔸 10 Jun 2026 12:39 UTC
18 points
8 ∶ 1
on: Critique: There are not enough “realistic” topics in EA public discussion
Solidly great practical questions here, I think I’ll incorporate some of them into things I run. In particular I agree with you that EtG is extremely underprioritised. It is both the genuinely most impactful life path for most people, and also comes with a huge degree of personal flexibility and benefits.

Kestrel🔸 8 Jun 2026 9:01 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Touch fuzzy, get util
I don’t think it’s in any way shameful to spend some of your time doing things that aren’t the “best” use of your time. In fact, I do a lot of this. I have a life I want to lead, and I won’t apologise for doing things that make me happy.
But in any case, community discussion of where best to give is usually positive from a util standpoint. It tends to teach you and other people around you structured and evaluated ways to prioritise your giving better, that are grounded in practical experience. And assuming you will be giving a whole bunch of money over the rest of your life, learning how to do it better is a super good use of time. There’s a reason Giving What We Can used to run “where to allocate £1000” sessions back when it did more community outreach.

EA in the Lakes

Kestrel🔸4 Jun 2026 8:45 UTC

6 points

0 comments1 min readEA link

Kestrel🔸 3 Jun 2026 7:52 UTC
12 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Clara Torres Latorre 🔸’s comment on: My disagreements with CEA’s approach to stewarding EA
Yes, learning how to recognize (and fund) good stewardship is a hard skill.
But I feel that (some) genuinely committed, longer-term EAs are exactly the kind of people who may actually be able to sit down with each other to do that.
I am speaking with experience of being a Quaker (the other seeking-focused moral ambition cult I hang out in), and the answer the Quakers have is to fund administrators, not pastors. That is, the people who take salaries for community building essentially take direction from the volunteer community organisers and get all the niggly administrative bits sorted out to ensure that the “job” of a voluntary community organiser remains fun and meaningful rather than overly stressful. It also means it costs a lot less—you don’t need that many administrators.
I could see this model working fairly well for a longer-term EA group. And it’s basically how the EA Forum works: paid administrators keep the platform going and enforce basic discipline standards, “volunteer” EAs post whatever they’re working on. And one could argue most of EAG works like this too: CEA hosts the space and food and Swapcard and enforces basic conduct standards for 1:1s, and leaves the EAs to all get on with EA-ing.

Kestrel🔸 2 Jun 2026 19:09 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Kirsten’s comment on: My disagreements with CEA’s approach to stewarding EA
It shouldn’t be such a hard sell. Why, when well stewarded meta-EA is such a ridiculously high-impact giving opportunity, and EA is full of givers searching for impact, do so few of us give to EA infrastructure?
Ultimately I think this is going to have to come from individual pledgers / EtGers who take control of their local groups via donations and reshape them into something that works for people in EA for the long haul.

Kestrel🔸 2 Jun 2026 10:21 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Kestrel🔸’s comment on: EAG London 2026
Also I don’t think we’re disagreeing on the core point, which is that people who really want to improve the world effectively should come to an EAG and try to figure out how.
I’m glad you had a good experience!

Kestrel🔸 2 Jun 2026 10:19 UTC
9 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Bentham's Bulldog’s comment on: EAG London 2026
Ending global extreme poverty via evidence-backed targeted cash transfers would be roughly $300 billion a year https://cega.berkeley.edu/end-of-poverty/
I don’t think that’s “every conceivable project that will make the world better”, that’s basically via GiveDirectly which a lot of EAs contribute to and is consistently estimated to be within the EA GHD funding bar sphere and does joint projects with GiveWell, part of “the main portfolio” if you will. Not to even start on the funding gaps in other bits of GHD, in animal welfare, in governance improvement, etc.
I understand that $50 billion sounds like a lot, and I’m really happy EA will be allocating more money effectively, but relative to both the scale of critical global need and the scope of possible global funding (shown via defense budgets) it’s still tiny. We are a fraction of a shard of the size we “need to be”.