Kestrel🔸

• Kestrel🔸 3 Jun 2026 7:52 UTC

  5 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

  7 points

  0 ∶ 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”.

• Kestrel🔸 2 Jun 2026 9:03 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Kestrel🔸’s comment on: EAG Lon­don 2026

  (It’s *roughly* $1 billion a year EAs have to allocate, whereas NATO spends about $1.5 trillion a year)

• Kestrel🔸 2 Jun 2026 8:59 UTC

  6 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: EAG Lon­don 2026

  I have to disagree with you on one point. EA is and has always been critically short of funding. It is that way before Anthropic, it will be that way after Anthropic, and everyone who ever complains that EA hasn’t managed to fix all the problems in the world yet needs to compare EA’s total funding level to the total NATO defense budget and truly understand why that is—the world’s central decision makers misallocate global financial priorities towards preparations for war rather than eradications of the root causes of war.

  That’s why we need the people who can do the very best work with the funding we have to come and network with us and learn there they might fit in. We are critically short of funding, and always in triage, but some things are triaged as worth it.

• Kestrel🔸 1 Jun 2026 8:42 UTC

  7 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: My dis­agree­ments with CEA’s ap­proach to stew­ard­ing EA

  An absolutely critical point of building an EA community that works for established members is

  • the established members contribute financially to this community infrastructure

  • the established members accept a “slightly less than professional” experience that costs less money to organize

  • the established members give useful critical feedback to the organisers about what they want to see in their group, accepting that they are essentially employing the community builder to steward them

  • the organisers, being funded and guided via existing members who attend the group, adopt a design habit of welcoming newcomers who find their way there, and being open to more people joining, but not making the whole of the community for them. In particular it doesn’t compromise on its epistemics or seeking discipline for outreach purposes, except in notably newcomer-focused spaces.

    These kind of culture norms have to start at the local group level. I would like to see city groups take membership subscriptions, for example.

• Kestrel🔸 1 Jun 2026 6:41 UTC

  5 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: Kestrel’s Quick takes

  Did you enjoy EA Global? Was it useful to you?

  Consider “tipping” CEA with a donation ( you can donate at https://​​www.givingwhatwecan.org/​​charities/​​centre-for-effective-altruism ) to close any gap between what you paid at registration and the value you feel you have received.

EA in the Lakes 2026

• Kestrel🔸 10 May 2026 22:52 UTC

  6 points

  4 ∶ 0

  on: Reflec­tions on An­thropic and EA

  Many people will compromise their morals for money. That’s life. I try not to hold it against them.

  For what it’s worth, EA’s donor core of pledgers/​EtGers probably aren’t going anywhere or compromising anything much, being a group of people who constantly could just decide to have more money and don’t. So maybe they’d be a nicer group for you to hang out with if this kind of moral compromise really bugs you?

  Personally I’d quite like to hear about your new charity.

Against lo­gos, egos, silos: the UN Hu­man­i­tar­ian chief on in­ter­na­tional aid

• Kestrel🔸 20 Apr 2026 7:01 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Why is it so hard to con­vince peo­ple of EA?

  I think you’re not realising the key difference a non-EA observer might see between

  • Shrimp on a farm (of which EAs have welfare projects going)

  • Wild, non-farmed non-fished shrimp (which are not to my knowledge the target of any EA welfare projects)

  Which means a lot of this is about human intervention in the lives of animals, and therefore, human treatment of animals—cruel or not.

  A simple “Some EAs believe we shouldn’t be cruel to animals, no matter how small, especially the animals we eat” generally works as a short answer. I generally find people don’t want to take the moral position of “humans should be cruel to the animals we eat”.

• Kestrel🔸 18 Apr 2026 9:10 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: huw’s comment on: A brief up­date on EA Funds, and a re­cruit­ment an­nounce­ment: Head of the EA In­fras­truc­ture Fund

  This is a great point.

  For anyone reading this who doesn’t know about the crux here: GiveWell prioritise (because it’s cost-effective) saving the lives of people in poverty, whose subjective wellbeing is low (because they are in poverty, and will continue to be in poverty after they don’t die from malaria). Therefore the increase in subjective wellbeing from life-saving work is nowhere near as high as it could be for e.g. mental health types of work.

• Kestrel🔸 8 Apr 2026 8:28 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jay Bailey🔸’s comment on: [Opinion] EA should do more to shape its pub­lic narrative

  EA diluting its message to expand would result in more unqualified people applying for jobs on the EA jobs boards, which will make them worse job boards.

• Kestrel🔸 1 Apr 2026 9:20 UTC

  18 points

  3 ∶ 1

  on: We’re grow­ing: CEA is in­creas­ing its font size

  Thanks for being so clear (and easy-read) about your future strategic ambitions for the EA community.

  Are there any plans for CEA to tackle parts of the EA community (such as the EA forum comment section) that are font-constrained?

An­nounc­ing the Lead Ex­po­sure Elimi­na­tion Project

• Kestrel🔸 30 Mar 2026 9:15 UTC

  2 points

  2 ∶ 1

  on: Nu­clear Power Ad­vo­cacy: An EA Cli­mate Philan­thropy Mistake

  A great post. I agree—nuclear advocacy just isn’t all that effective in a world where costs of renewables and batteries have fallen so much and continue to fall.

  I think more widely, what is judged “the most effective climate philanthropy intervention” will shift rapidly over time due to technological/​economic/​societal progress on climate and it’s going to be a constant scramble to keep up with that. This is different to the situation GiveWell is in, and GiveWell have far more money for their analysis operations than Giving Green do.

  I encourage continued donations to Giving Green’s operations costs. They need to be able to pay staff for good analysis.

  I encourage continued red-teaming of climate interventions and pointing out where interventions that might have been judged a high-EV bet in the past have ceased to be so.

• Kestrel🔸 23 Mar 2026 15:21 UTC

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: AGI & An­i­mals: Dis­cus­sion Thread

  Hi! There’s no labels on the slider bar so it’s initially unclear which side is agree vs disagree.

• Kestrel🔸 21 Mar 2026 21:12 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Dense writ­ing might be a sign of mud­dled thinking

  https://​​www.coursera.org/​​learn/​​sciwrite is a great course for someone looking to make their writing clearer.

• Kestrel🔸 20 Mar 2026 12:26 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 1

  in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Go­ing Big­ger: How We’re Scal­ing Effec­tive Giv­ing & Ca­reers in 2026

  I do believe that, from a purely expected-impact-maximising perspective, CG should scale up faster than they are currently doing by directing more of their money from GiveWell charities → fundraising organisations for GiveWell charities. There’s a whole bunch of opportunities above 1x they are intentionally missing out on, and also opportunities above their 5x funding bar they are trying to create and then intentionally miss out on. I believe that their current limit here is primarily reputational, and that altruism at this scale is not an efficient market.

  The reputational considerations being that CG does not want to be seen using too much of its global health allocation paying for fundraisers, because someone could write a hitpiece on “a billionaire wants you to give money to help the extreme poor but won’t give any himself”.

  Anyone who is not CG is not bound by the reputational considerations of CG, and can take advantage of a significant arbitrage opportunity.