Midtermist12

• Midtermist12 24 Feb 2026 20:50 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: James Herbert’s comment on: The Dis­cov­ery Prob­lem: Why EA Can’t Find What It Isn’t Look­ing For

  Thanks for sharing, this is a great reference. The 89/​9/​2 split is striking quantitative support for the concern I’m raising. I think my post is pointing at something their framework doesn’t quite capture though: all three of their prioritization types operate on the existing map. Cause discovery, finding what’s not on the map at all, is a different task, and the resources devoted to it are close to zero.

• Midtermist12 24 Feb 2026 20:39 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Charlie_Guthmann’s comment on: The Dis­cov­ery Prob­lem: Why EA Can’t Find What It Isn’t Look­ing For

  I think this is less futile than you’re suggesting. You’re right that in a decentralized system without formal governance, power defaults to capital. But the argument doesn’t require democratizing EA. It requires convincing some of the people with capital that broader epistemic empowerment is in their interest, measured by their own goals.

  At least some of the people with money and power in EA are genuinely trying to do the most good they can. Alexander Berger is publicly writing about the streetlight problem and acknowledging costly false negatives. EA’s own frameworks would instantly recognize pure exploitation with zero exploration as a failure mode in any other system. The ask isn’t “share power because it’s fair.” It’s “you’re leaving impact on the table, by your own criteria, and the fix is cheap relative to the cost of what you’re missing.”

  That’s not a constitutional reform. It’s one or two funders deciding that discovery infrastructure is worth building. Which is, admittedly, Path 1 again. But if the argument is strong enough, Path 1 is all it takes.

• Midtermist12 24 Feb 2026 20:20 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Charlie_Guthmann’s comment on: The Dis­cov­ery Prob­lem: Why EA Can’t Find What It Isn’t Look­ing For

  ---

  Thanks for this. I want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, so let me try to paraphrase.

  You’re saying the discovery problem I describe is real but is a symptom of something deeper: EA has no formal governance, so whoever controls the money controls the priorities, and there’s no institutional mechanism to resist that. The three groups you identify (people who think EA is just math, people who think decentralization is strategically good, and people who benefit from the status quo) form a coalition that blocks any structural reform, and they’re concentrated in the places where power actually lives. So any solution I propose, like scouts or green-teaming or seed grants, will just get absorbed by the same dynamics that created the problem, unless there’s something closer to a binding political structure that constrains how money translates into agenda-setting power.

  And your most pessimistic read is that this might not be fixable from inside EA at all, and that the better move might be starting something new that builds in those structural safeguards from the beginning.

  Is that roughly right? And if so, do you think there’s any version of reform that works short of formal governance, or is your view that anything less is window dressing?

• Midtermist12 24 Feb 2026 18:29 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Sarah Cheng 🔸’s comment on: The Dis­cov­ery Prob­lem: Why EA Can’t Find What It Isn’t Look­ing For

  The funding allocation question and the structural argument aren’t as separable as you’re suggesting. Nobody decided 89% within-cause was optimal. It’s the revealed preference of a system where within-cause work is legible, fundable, and career-safe, and discovery work is none of those things.

  I’d also draw a distinction the RP piece doesn’t make: even the 9% classified as “cause prioritization” is mostly ranking known cause areas against each other. That’s a different task from discovering new ones. CEARCH is the closest thing to dedicated cause discovery in EA, and it’s a tiny team doing top-down desktop research. There’s no intake mechanism where a community member with unusual domain knowledge can surface an observation. EA Funds is organized into four pre-existing cause area buckets with no “other” category, and even within those buckets the lens is narrow. The entire system is built to optimize within the existing map. Nobody’s job is to ask what’s not on it.

  To be clear, I don’t think shutting down the Forum is the answer. But the Forum needs a real connection to the power structure. Right now, someone could discover Cause X and post it here, and in all likelihood it would get modest engagement from people without allocation power, sit for a day or two, and sink. The people who could actually act on it probably aren’t reading the Forum systematically, and there’s no process that routes a promising signal to them. That’s what I mean by performance of openness. The door is open but it doesn’t lead anywhere.

  The suggestion that this work could be done essentially for free by volunteer EA groups is itself revealing. Nobody suggests within-cause prioritization should be unpaid side work. The system prices discovery at what it’s willing to pay for it.

• Midtermist12 23 Feb 2026 22:59 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Sarah Cheng 🔸’s comment on: The Dis­cov­ery Prob­lem: Why EA Can’t Find What It Isn’t Look­ing For

  I think the key question is what portion of EA’s total funding goes toward genuine discovery versus optimization within existing spotlights. Your examples may well be real successes. But if they represent a tiny fraction of total resource allocation, that’s consistent with my argument rather than a counter to it.

The Dis­cov­ery Prob­lem: Why EA Can’t Find What It Isn’t Look­ing For

• Midtermist12 6 Nov 2025 17:55 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 1

  on: Midter­mist12′s Quick takes

  It’s interesting to think about the potential upsides of AGI from the perspective of people who struggle with suicidal thoughts. It seems like there are significant chances of an extremely long, happy future that probably is not balanced by the S-risk (it seems more likely misaligned AGI would annihilate us than perpetually torture us).

  This has made suicidal thoughts much more compelling in the past than after recent developments. Thinking about losing the chance of an unimaginably good future (even just like 5-10%) chance that could be missed forecloses thoughts of further consideration of methods by which it could be achieved.

  Maybe disseminating this line of thinking could be helpful for suicide prevention?

• Midtermist12 16 Oct 2025 20:46 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Julia_Wise🔸’s comment on: EA needs more “rooms of one’s own”

  “Charitable purpose” can be pretty broad under U.S. law, for instance, and could probably encompass such funding. Or do you mean that funders are not interested in it?

• Midtermist12 16 Oct 2025 14:59 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Maybe ask for help more?

  A lot of the specific things you’ve mentioned make a lot of sense.

  Generally, I would be cautious about asking for help in contexts where review and/​or supervision will be necessary or your reliance on the volunteer could be detrimental. People are often excited to help and overstate what they actually can do. Often the value of the time involved with dealing with volunteers is far more valuable than what they produce.

• Midtermist12 14 Oct 2025 20:18 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: SofiaBalderson’s comment on: EA needs more “rooms of one’s own”

  Another virtue of the houses as a way of doing it is would be a pretty strong signal that someone using the resource is in it for the right reasons. There are a lot more constraints than someone just receiving a check and hoping that the person is trying to make an impact.

EA needs more “rooms of one’s own”

• Midtermist12 13 Oct 2025 15:35 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: EA in high-school eco­nomics education

  Teaching counterfactual reasoning in economics education

  A crucial EA concept for high school economics is counterfactual reasoning – systematically asking “what would have happened if agent X had not done action Y?” This is essential for understanding the actual impact of interventions.

  Why it matters:

  • Many interventions don’t create as much value as they appear because something similar would have happened anyway

  • The true impact is only the additional change caused by the intervention – the difference between what actually happened and what would have happened in the counterfactual scenario

  • It’s counterintuitive – our brains naturally credit actions without considering what would have occurred otherwise

  Methods to evaluate counterfactual impact:

  Randomized controlled trials (RCTs): Randomly assign some groups to receive an intervention and others not, then compare outcomes. The control group approximates what would have happened without the intervention.

  Before-and-after with comparison groups: Compare changes in a treated group to changes in a similar untreated group over the same period. This helps account for broader trends that would have occurred anyway.

  Trend analysis: Plot pre-intervention trends and project them forward. If post-intervention outcomes match the projected trend, the intervention may have had little counterfactual impact.

  Natural experiments: Find situations where an intervention occurred in one place but not another similar place due to arbitrary reasons, allowing comparison.

  Classroom applications:

  • Analyze case studies using these methods (e.g., evaluating a job training program’s effectiveness)

  • Have students design simple evaluation plans for school or community interventions

  • Critique news articles that claim causation without proper counterfactual analysis

  This teaches students both to think counterfactually and to evaluate causal claims empirically.

  (Comment made in collaboration with generative AI)

• Midtermist12 8 Oct 2025 20:22 UTC

  10 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: What posts would you like some­one to write?

  I have thought for a long time that the EA power centers have a lack of curiosity or appropriate respect for the potential of the EA community and has a pretty specific set of markers that suggest that people should be given the time of day. I have the impression that there is a pretty small “nerve center” that sets priorities and considers how the EA community might be helpful to address these priorities along the paths that it sees.

  This seems to me to limit the power of EA significantly: if we could be getting more perspectives and ideas taken seriously and dedicating resources in these direction, rather than just to relatively narrow agents of the “nerve center”, we might be able to accomplish a lot more. Right now it seems pretty sad that EA is often just identified with the people who have power in it, rather than its more basic and important idea of maximizing good with the resources that we have.

  I suppose there have probably been posts along these lines, but I guess a “democratizing EA funding and power as maximizing epistemic hygiene and reach” would be appreciated.

• Midtermist12 8 Oct 2025 14:52 UTC

  7 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Aidan Alexander’s comment on: Why you should eat meat—even if you hate fac­tory farming

  Yeah, I understand the need for credibility with the animal rights community, but it probably would be helpful if there were more prominent omnivores who emphatically identified as animal advocates. Probably one of the reasons factory farming can be so successful is that there’s a perceived barrier to entry to fighting it as becoming vegan. The more that vegans reinforce the narrative that “to be on our side, you need to be vegan”, the more they are alienating potential allies and making it easier for the monstrous system to persist. I think what might be the most important in broadening the movement would be prominent animal rights activists who are omnivores.

• Midtermist12 8 Oct 2025 14:34 UTC

  4 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Midtermist12’s comment on: How AI may be­come de­ceit­ful, syco­phan­tic… and lazy

  I don’t really understand why I am getting downvoted/​disagreevoted. I was just pointing out the contrast between humans—who also have the traits discussed in this post—and AI, which is basically that human beings have intrinsic motivations and virtues that AI does not have. I thought that this was a critical piece that was not really emphasized. It is pretty dispiriting to read through an article, point out something you think might be helpful, and have this happen.

• Midtermist12 7 Oct 2025 17:59 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 2

  on: How AI may be­come de­ceit­ful, syco­phan­tic… and lazy

  Thank you for this detailed analysis. I found the human analogy initially confusing, but I think there’s an important argument here that could be made more explicit.

  The essay documents extensive DSL (deceitful, sycophantic, lazy) behavior in humans, which initially seems to undermine the claim that AI will be different. However, you do address why humans accomplish difficult things despite these traits:

  “People do not appreciate how much of science relies on the majority of people practicing it to be rigorous, skilled, and ideologically dedicated to truth-seeking.”

  If I understand correctly, your core argument is:

  Humans have DSL traits BUT also possess intrinsic motivation, professional pride, and ideological commitment to truth/​excellence that counterbalances these tendencies. AI systems, trained purely through reward optimization, will lack these counterbalancing motivations and therefore DSL traits will dominate more completely.

  This is actually quite a sophisticated claim about the limits of instrumental training, but it’s somewhat buried in the “vibe physics” section. Making it more prominent might strengthen the essay, as it directly addresses the apparent paradox of “if humans are DSL, why do they succeed?”

  Does this capture your argument correctly?
  
  (note the above comment was generated with the assistance of AI)

• Midtermist12 6 Oct 2025 21:03 UTC

  4 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: AI safety re­mains un­der­funded by more than 3 OOMs

  Thanks for sharing this. While I think there are strong reasons to invest heavily in AI safety, I’m concerned this particular cost-benefit framing may not be as compelling as it initially appears.

  The paper uses a $10 million value of statistical life (VSL) to justify spending $100,000 per person to avoid a 1% mortality risk. However, if we’re being consistent with cost-effectiveness reasoning, we should note that GiveWell-recommended charities save lives in the developing world for approximately $5,000 each—roughly 2,000 times cheaper per life saved.

  By this logic, the same funding directed toward global health interventions would save orders of magnitude more lives with near-certainty, compared to reducing AI x-risk with uncertain probability.

  This doesn’t mean AI safety is a bad investment—there are strong arguments based on:

  • The value of preserving future generations (which Jones notes would increase spending estimates)

  • Diminishing returns or bottlenecks in scaling proven global health interventions

  • The categorical importance of preventing existential catastrophe

  • Portfolio diversification across different types of risk

  (Note: comment generated in collaboration with AI)

• Midtermist12 2 Oct 2025 19:40 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Aidan Alexander’s comment on: Why you should eat meat—even if you hate fac­tory farming

  As someone who endorses offsetting (or donating to animal charities in excess of offset) as a form of being an ally to animals, would not being an omnivore who donates far in excess of the offset make you more credible regarding this position?

• Midtermist12 24 Sep 2025 19:55 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Tristan Katz’s comment on: Beyond ‘Go Ve­gan’: A video in­tro­duc­ing om­nivores to an­other effec­tive way to help animals

  I don’t know that the contrast between climate and animal offsets is so strong. The harm caused by consuming animal products is also indirect in most cases in relation to the consumer: the animal consumed is already dead and has already suffered whatever harms the factory farming system inflicted on it, so your action harms it no further. The harm you are actually doing are increasing the demand for the product.

  The set of people eating meat that choose to offset and those that choose not to probably have a very different psychological environment regarding the animals consumed, I would think.

• Midtermist12 24 Sep 2025 19:15 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Tristan Katz’s comment on: Beyond ‘Go Ve­gan’: A video in­tro­duc­ing om­nivores to an­other effec­tive way to help animals

  I haven’t read more than the abstract of the referenced article, as access is restricted, but the abstract suggests that the reason that people deny the existence of animal minds is due to their dissonance between not wanting to cause harm to things that have minds and enjoying eating meat. Imposing offsets on oneself would seem to reconcile this dissonance: you enjoy an activity that causes harm and because you have this aversion to harm you couple that with an activity that has commensurate harm reduction.

  Although it is possible that meat consumption with offsets could have a corrosive effect on one’s perception of animals as moral patients, I would not infer this from the linked article, based on the psychological mechanisms described in the abstract.