Sarah Levin

Karma: 593

Sarah Levin 2 Jul 2025 21:16 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: How Unofficial Work Gets You Hired: Building Your Surface Area for Serendipity
Good post. Parts of this remind me of the book “Never Eat Alone”, on networking tactics. I got one of my first jobs as a direct result of implementing one of its suggestions (at a conference, organize a side event and invite the people who you most want to impress). It’s sometimes hyperbolic like most works in the genre—in fact I’m eating alone right now—but it’s got a lot of useful stuff. I’d recommend it for early-career people who want to understand what this sort of thing can look like concretely.

Sarah Levin 6 Jun 2025 19:26 UTC
29 points
1 ∶ 2
on: “Technical Support Units”—A Dubious GiveWell Grant?
For context, GiveWell’s relationship with CHAI dates to 2022, when GiveWell Managing Director Neil Buddy Shah departed to become CEO of CHAI. According to GiveWell’s announcement, “this transition does not mark the end of Buddy’s relationship with GiveWell. It is important that GiveWell maintain strong connections with leading organizations in the global health sector.” (Incidentally, Shah is also a member of Anthropic’s long-term benefit trust.)
GiveWell announced Shah’s departure in April 2022; Shah apparently started at CHAI in June; and in August GiveWell announced its first grant recommendation to CHAI, $10m for a new incubator program “to identify, scope, pilot, and ultimately scale cost-effective programs that GiveWell might fund”. As planned, the incubator led to later GiveWell grant recommendations to CHAI, like CHAI’s tuberculosis contact management program, and multiple grants to CHAI’s oral rehydration and zinc distribution program.
Assuming you’re correct that this grant is atypical for GiveWell, I would presume it’s a result of their special relationship with Shah.

Sarah Levin 24 Feb 2025 1:12 UTC
4 points
2 ∶ 2
in reply to: Jeff Kaufman 🔸’s comment on: Request for Guidance: Reaching Out to Charities Before Publishing Reviews and Our Concerns
You pointed out the lack of staff continuity between the present CEA and the subset of then-CEA-now-EV which posted the doctored image, to argue that their behavior does not reflect on the present CEA, so that we have no particular reason to expect sketchy or adversarial comms from the present CEA.
Your argument about lack of staff continuity is valid as a local counterpoint which carries some weight (IMO not an extreme amount of weight, given the social and institutional links between the different orgs siloed under then-CEA-now-EV, but others might reasonably disagree). Nevertheless I object to your conclusion about present CEA, largely because of a separate incident involving present CEA staff. So, I brought up this other incident to explain why.
It’s true that this is also an example of the kind of thing VettedCauses is worried about, but that’s not what made me think of it here.

Sarah Levin 22 Feb 2025 19:42 UTC
13 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jeff Kaufman 🔸’s comment on: Request for Guidance: Reaching Out to Charities Before Publishing Reviews and Our Concerns
The current version of CEA employs Julia Wise, your wife. Previously Alexey Guzey sent Wise a draft of a post critical of her superior Will MacAskill and a request for confidentiality. Wise accidentally (or “accidentally”) leaked the draft to MacAskill, who then used it to prepare an adversarial public response to the upcoming post rather than to give Guzey feedback ahead of publication as he’d requested. Neither Wise nor MacAskill disclosed this until after the leak was caught because MacAskill publicly responded to parts of the draft which were removed before publication. Wise remains in her role as CEA’s community liaison, where she is the point person for confidential information from people who worry that leaks would provoke adversarial action from powerful community insiders.

Sarah Levin 22 Feb 2025 1:28 UTC
29 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Habryka [Deactivated]’s comment on: Request for Guidance: Reaching Out to Charities Before Publishing Reviews and Our Concerns
At one point CEA released a doctored EAG photo with a “Leverage Research” sign edited to be bizarrely blank. (Archive page with doctored photo, original photo.) I assume this was an effort to bury their Leverage association after the fact.
What links here?
- Jeff Kaufman 🔸's comment on Request for Guidance: Reaching Out to Charities Before Publishing Reviews and Our Concerns by VettedCauses (24 Feb 2025 16:17 UTC; 8 points)

Sarah Levin 11 Aug 2024 0:46 UTC
26 points
6 ∶ 0
in reply to: anormative’s comment on: anormative’s Quick takes
The history of big foundations shows clearly that, after the founder’s death, they revert to the mean and give money mostly to whatever is popular and trendy among clerks and administrators, rather than anything unusual which the donor might’ve cared about. If you look at the money flowing out of e.g. the Ford Foundation, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anything which is there because Henry or Edsel Ford thought it was important, rather than because it’s popular among the NGO class who staffs the foundation. See Henry Ford II’s resignation letter.
If you want to accomplish anything more specific than “fund generic charities”—as anyone who accepts the basic tenets of EA obviously should—then creating a perpetual foundation is unwise.

Sarah Levin 6 Aug 2024 19:37 UTC
15 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Habryka [Deactivated]’s comment on: Ozzie Gooen’s Shortform
I have personally heard several CFAR employees and contractors use the word “debugging” to describe all psychological practices, including psychological practices done in large groups of community members. These group sessions were fairly common.
In that section of the transcript, the only part that looks false to me is the implication that there was widespread pressure to engage in these group psychology practices, rather than it just being an option that was around. I have heard from people in CFAR who were put under strong personal and professional pressure to engage in *one-on-one* psychological practices which they did not want to do, but these cases were all within the inner ring and AFAIK not widespread. I never heard any stories of people put under pressure to engage in *group* psychological practices they did not want to do.

Sarah Levin 30 Jul 2024 18:16 UTC
46 points
11 ∶ 1
in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: In the last 2 years, what surprising ideas has EA championed or how has the movement changed its mind?
This looks pretty much right, as a description of how EA has responded tactically to important events and vibe shifts. Nevertheless it doesn’t answer OP’s questions, which I’ll repeat:
- What ideas that were considered wrong/low status have been championed here?
- What has the movement acknowledged it was wrong about previously?
- What new, effective organisations have been started?
Your reply is not about new ideas, or the movement acknowledging it was wrong (except about Bankman-Fried personally, which doesn’t seem like what OP is asking about), or new organizations.
It seems important, to me, that EA’s history over the last two years is instead mainly the story of changes in funding, in popular discourse, and in the social strategy of preexisting institutions. e.g. the FLI pause letter was the start of a significant PR campaign, but all the *ideas* in it would’ve been perfectly familiar to an EA in 2014 (except for “Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth?”, which is a consequence of then-unexpected developments in AI technology rather than of intellectual work by EAs).

Sarah Levin 6 Jul 2024 17:52 UTC
7 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: David Mathers🔸’s comment on: Distancing EA from rationality is foolish
IIRC, while most of Alameda’s early staff came from EA, the early investment came largely from Jaan Tallinn, a big Rationalist donor. This was a for-profit investment, not a donation, but I would guess that the overlapping EA/Rationalist social networks made the deal possible.
That said, once Bankman-Fried got big and successful he didn’t lean on Rationalist branding or affiliations at all, and he made a point of directing his “existential risk” funding to biological/pandemic stuff but not AI stuff.

Sarah Levin 28 Jun 2024 4:02 UTC
10 points
2 ∶ 1
on: Distancing EA from rationality is foolish
This is a good account of what EA gets from Rationality, and why EAs would be wise to maintain the association with rationality, and possibly also with Rationality.
What does Rationality get from EA, these days? Would Rationalists be wise to maintain the association with EA?

Sarah Levin 12 Apr 2024 18:38 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: poppinfresh’s comment on: Stephen Clare’s Shortform
the costs of a bad hire are somewhat bounded, as they can eventually be let go.
This depends a lot on what “eventually” means, specifically. If a bad hire means they stick around for years—or even decades, as happened in the organization of one of my close relatives—then the downside risk is huge.
OTOH my employer is able to fire underperforming people after two or three months, which means we can take chances on people who show potential even if there are some yellow flags. This has paid off enormously, e.g. one of our best people had a history of getting into disruptive arguments in nonprofessional contexts, but we had reason to think this wouldn’t be an issue at our place… and we were right, as it turned out, but if we lacked the ability to fire relatively quickly, then I wouldn’t have rolled those dice.
The best advice I’ve heard for threading this needle is “Hire fast, fire fast”. But firing people is the most unpleasant thing a leader will ever have to do, so a lot of people do it less than they should.

Sarah Levin 21 Dec 2023 20:20 UTC
45 points
25 ∶ 9
on: The privilege of native English speakers in reaching high-status, influential positions in EA
I can readily believe the core claims in this post, and I’m sure it’s a frustrating situation for non-native English speakers. That said, it’s worth keeping in mind that for most professional EA roles, and especially for “thought leadership”, English-language communication ability is one of the most critical skills for doing the job well. It is not a problem that people who grew up practicing this skill will be “overrepresented” in these positions.
There is certainly a cosmic unfairness in this. It’s also unfair that short people will be underrepresented among basketball players, but this does not mean there’s a problem with basketball.
The actions to address this ought to be personal, not structural. It’s worth some effort on the margin for native speakers to understand the experience and situation of non-native speakers—indeed this is one part of “English-language communication ability”. I’m grateful to my foreign friends for explaining many aspects of this to me, it’s helped me in a fair number of professional situations. Things like your talk at an international conference to educate people about this stuff seems like a great idea. And of course most non-native speakers who seek positions in EA (or other international movements) correctly put a great deal of effort into improving their fluency in the lingua franca.

Sarah Levin 24 Jun 2023 16:46 UTC
15 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Toby_Ord’s comment on: My tentative best guess on how EAs and Rationalists sometimes turn crazy
Huh! Retracted. I’m sorry.

Sarah Levin 23 Jun 2023 21:13 UTC
47 points
16 ∶ 0
in reply to: Habryka [Deactivated]’s comment on: My tentative best guess on how EAs and Rationalists sometimes turn crazy
I mostly agree with your larger point here, especially about the relative importance of FTX, but early Leverage was far more rationalist than it was EA. As of 2013, Leverage staff was >50% Sequences-quoting rationalists, including multiple ex-SIAI and one ex-MetaMed, compared with exactly one person (Mark, who cofounded THINK) who was arguably more of an EA than a rationalist. Leverage taught at CFAR workshops before they held the first EA Summit. Circa 2013 Leverage donors had strong overlap with SIAI/MIRI donors but not with CEA donors. etc.

Sarah Levin 23 Jun 2023 19:53 UTC
8 points
4 ∶ 7
on: My tentative best guess on how EAs and Rationalists sometimes turn crazy
I think trying to figure out the common thread “explaining datapoints like FTX, Leverage Research, [and] the LaSota crew” won’t yield much of worth because those three things aren’t especially similar to each other, either in their internal workings or in their external effects. “World-scale financial crime,” “cause a nervous breakdown in your employee,” and “stab your landlord with a sword” aren’t similar to each other and I don’t get why you’d expect to find a common cause. “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
There’s a separate question of why EAs and rationalists tolerate weirdos, which is more fruitful. But an answer there is also gonna have to explain why they welcome controversial figures like Peter Singer or Eliezer Yudkowsky, and why extremely ideological group houses like ~~early Toby Ord’s~~ [EDIT: Nope, false] or more recently the Karnofsky/Amodei household exercise such strong intellectual influence in ways that mainstream society wouldn’t accept. And frankly if you took away the tolerance for weirdos there wouldn’t be much left of either movement.

Sarah Levin 20 Jun 2023 22:58 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: Jonny Spicer 🔸’s comment on: Jonny Spicer’s Shortform
Your “90% confidence interval” of… what, exactly? This looks like a confidence interval over the value of your own subjective probability estimate? And “90% as the mean” of… a bunch of different guesses you’ve taken at your “true” subjective probability? I can’t imagine why anyone would do that but I can’t think what else this could coherently mean…?
If I can be blunt, I suspect you might be repeating probabilistic terms without really tracking their technical meaning, as though you’re just inserting nontechnical hedges. Maybe it’s worth taking the time to reread the map/territory stuff and then run through some calibration practice problems while thinking closely about what you’re doing. Or maybe just use nontechnical hedges more, they work perfectly well for expressing things like this.

Sarah Levin 19 Jun 2023 19:45 UTC
5 points
2 ∶ 1
in reply to: Jonny Spicer 🔸’s comment on: Jonny Spicer’s Shortform
...What on earth does “90% probability, with medium confidence” mean? Do you think it’s 90% likely or not?

Sarah Levin 16 Jun 2023 22:13 UTC
59 points
26 ∶ 1
on: How has FTX’s collapse affected public perception of EA?
Great, this is useful data.
Results demonstrated that FTX had decreased satisfaction by 0.5-1 points on a 10-point scale within the EA community, but overall community sentiment remained positive at ~7.5/10
That’s a big drop! In practice I’ve only ever seen this type of satisfaction scale give results between about ⁷⁄₁₀ through 9.5/10 (which makes sense, right, if my satisfaction with EA is ³⁄₁₀ then I’m probably not sticking around the community and answering member surveys), so that decline is a real big chunk of the scale’s de facto range.
I suppose it’s not surprising that the impact on perception is much bigger inside EA, where there’s (appropriately) been tons of discourse on this, than in the general public.
What links here?
- How has FTX’s collapse impacted EA? by AnonymousEAForumAccount (17 Oct 2023 17:02 UTC; 248 points)
- AnonymousEAForumAccount's comment on Updates on Community Health Survey Results by David_Moss (26 Mar 2024 23:07 UTC; 35 points)

Sarah Levin 16 Apr 2023 1:30 UTC
11 points
2 ∶ 0
on: A job matching service for affected FTXFF grantees
Looking back five months later, can you say anything about whether this program ended up matching people with new jobs or opportunities, and if so how many? Thanks!

Sarah Levin 16 Apr 2023 1:29 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Open Phil is seeking applications from grantees impacted by recent events
Looking back five months later, can you say anything about whether this program ended up making grants, and if so how much/how many? Thanks!