I am not sure if the OPEC exit is directly connected with the AI stuff. Sure, leaving OPEC might give UAE more cash (because they can now sell more barrels of oil), and they could use some of that money to invest in AI data centers etc. But I really do not think that they left OPEC simply because they needed more money for AI.
Mihkel Viires 🔹
Karma: 144
The article ends by saying: “It still holds a big chunk of harder-to-sell positions in privately held companies such as Anthropic. It remains to be seen if those companies will live up to their lofty valuations if and when they hit the public markets.” I wonder if this means that the fund did not get wiped out completely—otherwise Citadel (who bought all of their publicly traded stock positions) would have also taken their Anthropic shares?
I am not sure I understand your UAE example. Are you saying that there is some delay / difference / gap between what policies / goals the UAE has set for AI and what it is really doing?
I assume that the money moved by GiveWell excludes money they received from Coefficient Giving, is that correct?
The 100% growth for GiveWell in 2025 coincided with the aid cuts. Not sure if aid cuts are the only reason for the increase in donations, but I do assume those news motivated at least some new donors to come in or existing donors to increase donation sizes. It will be interesting to see how this will change in 2026 and going forward: will these donors keep donating at the same level or higher level or will they pull back somewhat?
Thanks for putting this overview together, this is highly valuable.
cG has written about this: https://coefficientgiving.org/research/worldview-diversification/
Despite the real risk from hantavirus being low, it is getting covered a lot in media right now. I think this is actually good. A lot of people had already forgotten about the pandemic that we had not that long ago and moved on to worrying about other problems currently dominating the news cycle. Hopefully this serves as a (small) reminder to people that pandemic preparedness / biosecurity really does matter.
BOTEC: 4.2 percent of suicides in the state of Victoria in Australia were gambling-related. 19.4 percent of suicides in Hong Kong were gambling-related. 720,000 suicides happen every year. Let’s say 10 percent of all suicides globally are related to gambling. That would be 72,000 gambling-related suicides.
Tobacco causes over 7 million deaths per year, while alcohol kills 2.6 million people per year.
Gambling interventions could be cost-effective, in some situations. Especially for larger countries yet to liberalize gambling/betting (like Brazil, India)? Also, now might be a window to lobby for stricter regulations on prediction markets.
Random fun fact: Indonesia has banned gambling, but is the only country where tobacco advertising is still legal.
Wytham Abbey was listed on the market in May 2024 and sold in November 2025, so it took 18 months to sell. I do not know whether 18 months is slow or fast to sell a property like this. Would waiting another year have helped get a higher price? Maybe. But I guess waiting has costs too, like not being able to use the money right now and paying for property maintenance.
I do agree that every ban should be well-justified and well thought out. I think it is worth noting that this law has been two years in the making. They have received written evidence from 88 different stakeholders, most of whom are Big Tobacco or Big Vape backed organizations.
Honestly, I think the big problem with the bill is that they only applied the generational ban to cigarettes; vaping and other nicotine products will still be available to them.EDIT: Turns out the law bans both cigarettes and vapes.EDIT2: Only cigarettes will be banned. Some outlets seem to have mistakenly reported that vapes are included in the generational ban.
(Protecting civil liberties is a popular argument for Big Tobacco / Vape lobbyists to use against stricter laws. )
First, to be clear, I am not saying illicit tobacco trade does not exist. It certainly does and is a problem.
But when it comes to tobacco, it helps to always be a bit paranoid about every claim that you hear. Big Tobacco does often argue that raising taxes / making laws more stringent is risky, because it could lead to increased illicit trade. But this argument does not actually hold up. Illicit cigarette sales in the UK over the last few decades:
When it comes to Australia: well, it does seems that the article I linked above does not really hold up here, right? Australia does have a massive problem with illicit sales. Now, there certainly are some former law enforcement officers often appearing on Australian media who say that the only way to deal with this problem is that the tax should be lowered. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, turns out that they are usually funded by Big Tobacco, even if they don’t disclose it.
I am no expert on the best way to crack down on illicit trade, but I do believe that if the UK could deal with this issue, so can Australia, if it tries harder. I do wonder if lobbying for more funding / helping the AU government come up with novel ways to solve this problem could be an effective intervention. I do not believe that the correct answer to this problem is that we should just give up and let the tobacco companies get the excise lowered. Tobacco taxes are the most effective way to drive behaviour change, after all.
The UK is set to pass a law that bans the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2008. Once the king signs it into law, the UK will become the second country in the world to introduce a generational smoking ban, after the Maldives did so last November. (New Zealand also considered such a ban a few years ago, but did not go through with it.)
Have you considered applying for 80,000 Hours’ or Probably Good’s career advising?
My takeaways from reading the NYT article:
Social expectations have (at least in the U.S., which the piece mostly focuses on; it might be a bit different in Europe and other parts of the world) somewhat shifted away from supporting ultra-high-net-worth individuals from doing a lot of philanthropy and doing it publicly. This is sad. We should think if we could somehow help change that. People giving a lot of money to effective causes is something that definitely deserves to be praised and celebrated.
There is a lack of accountability for the pledgers. My guess is that Giving Pledge could benefit from scaling up their team significantly to contact and engage donors more regularly. On the other hand, I think society should hold the pledges more to account, and call out people who do not start donating.
Another, less plausible explanation for the slow-down in Giving Pledge sign-ups might be the growth of Founders Pledge in recent years. Some people who would have signed the Giving Pledge in the past might now sign the Founders Pledge instead.[1] Anecdotal evidence from my own country supports this hypothesis: no person has signed Giving, but four billionaires / UHNWIs have signed Founders.
- ^
Giving and Founders are not perfect substitutes; Founders also targets early-stage founders who are not yet (ultra) wealthy.)
The European Citizens’ Initiative is an underutilized tool for driving policy change in the EU, happy to see someone using it.
How do you plan to reach 1,000,000 signatures?
This is probably not a great idea, but throwing it out here anyway: since Netflix now has ads, we could buy commercials that run before the start of each episode. We could use this to give viewers a very brief intro to what effective altruism really is.
Great and well-researched post, thanks for writing!
Maybe someone should start an incubator program to help people start EA-aligned YouTube channels.
I wonder if this could be a potential intervention strategy to help quit addictions: we pay people to continue to do something they have so far been doing for free because they are addicted, and thus make it feel like work and less fun. Probably this would not work for everyone, but maybe for some people, as was the case with you, it could be an effective way to help them quit their addiction.
“We were fortunate to occupy one of the four private rooms in maternity, with running water, electricity and two beds—luxuries the 20 other NICU families did not have. Every 2 hours as we moved to the NICU to feed him, we tiptoed through and over mothers and families who lined the corridor. I was overwhelmed with guilt from two angles. First that we paid $30 a day without thought for a private room while others slept on the floor.”
I am not sure if you should feel particularly guilty about this. By paying more for the private room, you probably helped the hospital fund the care for the other 20 families there, who could not pay as much.