This account is used by the EA Forum Team to publish summaries of posts.
SummaryBot
Karma: 974
Executive summary: This exploratory essay argues that even if we are completely clueless about the long-term effects of our actions on suffering, we can still justifiably focus on reducing suffering within the scope of consequences we can realistically assess, by giving non-zero weight to “scope-adjusted” consequentialist views that offer practical guidance when others do not.
Key points:
Cluelessness doesn’t necessarily paralyze action: Even if we assume total long-term cluelessness about the net effects of our actions, we can still reasonably act on views that guide us within a scope of reasonably foreseeable consequences.
Scope-adjusted consequentialism provides practical guidance: By assigning some weight to versions of consequentialism that prioritize assessable consequences (e.g. “reasonable consequentialism”), we retain action-guiding moral recommendations.
Asymmetry justifies action: If one view gives no recommendations (due to cluelessness) and another gives actionable guidance (due to limited scope), it is rational to follow the latter even with minimal credence in it.
Toy models illustrate “medium-termism”: Simple models suggest that most of the value we can influence lies within the next several centuries or millennia, offering a plausible time horizon for focused efforts.
Giving weight to multiple views is epistemically and morally defensible: Moral uncertainty, practical paralysis, and modesty all support assigning partial weight to multiple plausible theories, including scope-adjusted ones.
Moral responsibility may track assessability: The idea that “ought implies can” supports the notion that we have stronger duties within the domains we can realistically influence, making scope-adjusted views both intuitive and justified.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory post argues that widespread neglect of wild animal suffering—despite its immense scale—is driven by a range of cognitive biases, and that overcoming these biases requires conscious effort and intellectual honesty. Key points:
Wild animal suffering vastly outweighs human-caused animal suffering, yet it is overlooked even by many animal advocates; this discrepancy is not logically grounded and is likely due to psychological biases.
Cognitive biases such as status quo bias, scope neglect, survivorship bias, and compassion fade cause people to underestimate or emotionally disconnect from the scale and severity of suffering in the wild.
People tend to empathize more with large, intelligent, or emotionally relatable animals, leading to the neglect of small animals (e.g., insects and crustaceans) that make up the majority of wild animal populations.
Biases like omission bias and the idyllic view of nature cause individuals to excuse natural suffering or see it as less morally urgent simply because it is not human-caused.
Common reasoning errors, including the assumption that “nature must be good,” false consensus about public opinion, and proportion bias, reinforce inaction by downplaying the moral importance or feasibility of interventions.
The author advocates for practicing intellectual honesty and consistent reflection, arguing that only through sustained effort can we overcome our intuitive biases and make more accurate moral judgments about wild animal suffering.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: In response to titotal’s critique of the AI 2027 forecast, the author acknowledges the model’s technical flaws but argues that even imperfect forecasts can play a valuable role in guiding action under deep uncertainty—especially when inaction carries its own risks—making such models practically useful for personal and policy decisions despite their epistemic limitations.
Key points:
AI 2027 has serious modeling issues—including implausible superexponential growth assumptions and misaligned simulation outputs—but still represents one of the few formalized efforts to forecast AI timelines.
Titotal’s critique rightly identifies technical flaws but overstates the dangers of acting on such forecasts while underestimating the risks of inaction or underreaction.
Inaction is also a bet; choosing not to act based on short timelines still relies on an implicit model, which might be wrong and harmful under plausible futures involving rapid AI progress.
Many real-life decisions informed by AI 2027—like career shifts or delayed plans—are reasonable hedges, not irrational overreactions, especially given the credible possibility of AGI within our lifetimes.
In AI governance, “robust” strategies across timelines may not exist, as the best moves under short and long timelines diverge significantly; acting under flawed but directional models may be necessary.
A forecasting catch-22 exists: improving models takes time, but waiting for better models could delay needed action—making imperfect models practically important tools in high-stakes uncertainty.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: In this exploratory and informal post, the author argues that moral realism—the idea that moral facts exist independently of human beliefs—is implausible, primarily because evolutionary and empirical explanations better account for our moral intuitions, which lack the kind of reliability, feedback, and motivational force typically associated with objective truths.
Key points:
Evolutionary debunking undermines moral realism: Our moral beliefs can be explained through evolutionary pressures and cultural evolution without invoking independent moral facts, suggesting such facts are unnecessary and epistemically unreliable.
Intuitions alone aren’t enough: Moral intuitions lack consistent empirical feedback, making them a poor foundation for claims of objective truth—unlike intuitions in domains like math or logic, which are reinforced by empirical success and feedback.
Moral facts lack motivational force: Even if moral facts existed, it’s unclear why they would motivate action—unlike instrumental knowledge (e.g., math), which can align with an agent’s goals and can be used to convince others.
Deliberative indispensability and normative realism: The strongest argument for realism may be Enoch’s claim that deliberation presupposes normative realism, but the author resists this, interpreting preferences and deliberation as descriptively rather than normatively motivated.
Empirical and decision-theoretic tests of realism fall short: The author is skeptical of empirical predictions (e.g., smarter agents converging on moral truths) and wagers (e.g., the Normative Realist’s Wager), noting that such arguments often smuggle in realist assumptions.
EA can still thrive under anti-realism: Despite rejecting moral realism, the author affirms commitment to EA principles, seeing them as a strong expression of preferences and values rather than objective moral truths, and argues this framing still supports persuasion and institutional design.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: In this exploratory essay, the author proposes a framework of “spillover altruism”—the strategic personal practice of norm-setting behaviors that create positive externalities for local communities—as a way to improve personal and communal well-being without relying on institutional change or mass persuasion.
Key points:
The author argues that while traditional effective altruism focuses on distant, large-scale impact, applying an impact-focused mindset locally through “spillover altruism” can improve both personal and community life.
Spillover altruism centers on changing one’s own behavior to positively influence social norms, such as by avoiding harmful networked platforms (e.g., TikTok), using public goods (e.g., transit, parks), or hosting inclusive social gatherings.
The piece advocates for anchoring social rituals (e.g., weekly open-invite meals, group hikes) that encourage community building and spontaneous social connections.
The author highlights the corrosive impact of high personal consumption on community norms and suggests voluntarily capping one’s spending relative to local median income to normalize modest lifestyles and expand access to shared experiences.
A “local altruism budget” is proposed—e.g., allocating 10% of income to support local institutions and individuals—to revitalize community culture and compensate for market failures in socially valuable but economically fragile domains.
The author acknowledges the difficulty of persuading others directly and suggests that modeling pro-social behaviors is a more viable path to cultural change via imitation and social contagion.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory argument defends moral realism—the view that some moral truths are objective and stance-independent—by asserting that denying such truths leads to implausible and counterintuitive implications, and that our intuitive moral judgments are as epistemically justified as basic logical or perceptual beliefs.
Key points:
Definition and Defense of Moral Realism: The author defines moral realism as the belief in stance-independent moral truths and argues that some moral facts (e.g., the wrongness of torture) are too intuitively compelling to be explained away as subjective or false.
Critique of Anti-Realism’s Consequences: Moral anti-realism, the author argues, implies that even clearly irrational behaviors (e.g., self-harm, extreme sacrifice for trivial desires) are not mistaken as long as they are desired—an implication that runs counter to ordinary moral and rational intuitions.
Epistemology of Moral Beliefs: The author analogizes moral intuition to visual and logical perception, claiming that moral beliefs are justified in the same way as foundational beliefs in other domains—by intellectual appearances that seem self-evident unless strongly refuted.
Rebuttal of Common Objections: The post addresses key arguments against moral realism—such as disagreement, the supposed “queerness” of moral facts, and evolutionary debunking—and contends that these objections either misunderstand objectivity or rely on assumptions inconsistent with other accepted non-physical truths (e.g., logical or epistemic norms).
Moral Knowledge and Evolution: The author argues that our ability to access moral truths is best explained by evolution endowing us with rational faculties that can discover such truths, paralleling our capacity to grasp mathematical and logical facts.
Theistic Perspective (Optional): As a supplementary note, the author, a theist, adds that belief in God further supports the idea that humans are equipped to discern moral truths—though this point is acknowledged to carry less weight for non-theists.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: As AI chat tools increasingly shape how people search for information, this exploratory and practical post argues that Effective Altruism (EA) organizations should adopt Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) strategies to ensure their ideas are accurately cited in AI-generated content, enhancing visibility, credibility, and impact across communications, fundraising, and policy advocacy.
Key points:
Shift in search behavior: A growing share of users—especially Gen Z—now consult AI tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity instead of traditional search engines, making LLMs a critical frontier for information dissemination.
AEO vs. SEO: While SEO targets search rankings, AEO focuses on making content structured, accessible, and citable by AI systems, with strategies such as HTML formatting, query-style headers, and clear summaries.
Strategic benefits: AEO can improve how EA organizations are portrayed in AI chats, increase donor trust, expand outreach beyond EA circles, and elevate policy-relevant content in public discourse.
Implementation tips: The post outlines low-cost, actionable steps including schema markup, plain-language summaries, content formatting for AI readability, and presence in knowledge graphs like Wikidata and Wikipedia.
Limitations and tradeoffs: Risks include unpredictable AI outputs, difficulty measuring impact, and the need for ongoing maintenance—yet ignoring AEO could let misinformation dominate AI spaces.
Collaborative call: The author invites collaboration on shared tools and resources (e.g., visibility dashboards, FAQ content) to improve AI visibility across the EA ecosystem.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory post outlines the author’s personal model of AI risk and Effective Altruism’s role in addressing it, emphasizing a structured, cause-neutral approach to AI safety grounded in a mix of high-level doom scenarios, potential mitigations, and systemic market failures, while acknowledging uncertainty and inviting alternative perspectives.
Key points:
The author sees existential AI risk—especially scenarios where “everyone dies”—as the most salient concern, though they recognize alternative AI risks (e.g., value lock-in, S-risks) are also worth investigating.
They categorize AI risk using Yoshua Bengio’s framework of intelligence, affordances, and goals, mapping each to specific mitigation agendas such as interpretability, alignment, and governance.
A core rationale for AI risk plausibility is framed in economic terms: systemic market failures like lemon markets, externalities, and cognitive biases may prevent actors from internalizing catastrophic AI risks.
Practical agendas include pausing AI development, improving evaluations, incentivizing safety research, and developing pro-human social norms to counteract these failures.
The author reflects that their model unintentionally mirrors the EA framework of importance, tractability, and neglectedness—starting from doom, identifying mitigations, and explaining why others don’t prioritize them.
The post is cautious and reflective in tone, aiming more to clarify personal reasoning than to assert universal conclusions, and encourages readers to critique or build on the model.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This evidence-based introduction by Animal Ethics challenges the idyllic view of wild animal life by arguing that many wild animals endure immense, often overlooked suffering from natural causes, and that humans have moral reasons to help alleviate such suffering where possible.
Key points:
Widespread suffering in the wild: Contrary to common perceptions, wild animals—especially young and small ones—often live short, painful lives due to hunger, disease, injury, parasitism, and harsh environments.
Moral relevance beyond human-caused harm: The post asserts that caring about animal suffering should not be limited to cases of human-inflicted harm; suffering from natural causes also deserves concern and action.
Potential for humane intervention: There are precedents and possibilities for helping wild animals (e.g. rescues, vaccinations), and targeted interventions can be net-positive, particularly if carefully designed to avoid unintended harms.
Barriers to recognition: Misleading mental imagery (e.g., of charismatic adult mammals) and unfamiliarity with population dynamics obscure the scale and severity of wild animal suffering.
Challenges to the “let nature be” view: The idea that helping wild animals is “unnatural” is critiqued as a form of speciesism, especially given how readily humans alter nature for their own benefit.
Call for a new research field: The article advocates for a cross-disciplinary field dedicated to understanding and improving wild animal welfare, combining insights from ecology, veterinary science, and animal ethics.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This impassioned exposé argues that the insect farming industry—widely promoted as sustainable, ethical, and economically viable—is instead environmentally harmful, economically failing, and built on deceptive claims, making its continued public subsidization unjustifiable.
Key points:
Environmental harm: Contrary to industry claims, insect farming may be worse for the environment than soy-based alternatives, with a UK government report estimating 13.5 times the carbon emissions, due to energy-intensive heating and inefficient feed conversion.
Industry deception: Insect companies promote sustainability through self-funded, opaque studies while ignoring or contradicting independent academic research; public-facing narratives are controlled to evade scrutiny.
Economic failure: Despite millions in subsidies, the insect farming sector is economically unsustainable, with major companies collapsing and feed remaining significantly more expensive than traditional options.
Animal welfare concerns: Insects are farmed in cruel, disease-prone environments and killed by starvation, boiling, or crushing, raising moral concerns—especially as evidence grows that insects feel pain.
Misaligned incentives: The industry does not serve a human food market but mainly supplies feed for farmed animals, undermining claims that it’s a substitute for meat consumption.
Call to action: The author urges readers to pressure policymakers (specifically referencing DOGE) to end taxpayer subsidies for insect farms and support organizations focused on insect welfare instead.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The post argues that AI safety grantmaking is dominated by research-focused insiders who lack mainstream political and philanthropic experience, resulting in informal and often opaque funding decisions that neglect high-impact advocacy work; it calls for more rigorous, transparent procedures and greater investment in politically experienced staff to ensure funding decisions align with effective altruist goals.
Key points:
Mismatch Between Research and Advocacy Needs: The field disproportionately funds academic-style research over political advocacy, even though the latter is more likely to achieve real-world impact in reducing AI risk.
Insularity and Lack of External Expertise: Most AI safety grantmakers have no experience in mainstream philanthropy or professional advocacy, leading to poor adoption of established best practices.
Absence of Formal Evaluation Criteria: Funders often make grant decisions based on subjective judgments without using transparent rubrics, benchmarks, or quantifiable goals, leaving grantees without guidance.
Challenges of Feedback and Accountability: The lack of measurable feedback loops in AI governance is compounded by an unwillingness to establish even proxy metrics or structured evaluations.
Recommendations for Reform: The post urges funders to hire experts in politics and philanthropy, adopt formal grantmaking criteria, and support medium donors in conducting independent grant evaluations.
Call to Action and Closure: With CAIP suspended due to lack of funding, the author remains available for consultation and calls for systemic reform to prevent waste and better serve the mission of AI safety.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This reflective post explores the spectrum of human motivations behind giving—from self-interested exchanges to spiritually detached generosity—drawing on Buddhist teachings to suggest that expectations tied to giving are a key source of suffering, and encouraging readers to examine their own intentions without pressure to attain perfection immediately.
Key points:
The post critiques the common gap between idealized selfless giving and the reality of giving with expectations, noting how even monetary transactions are often driven by deep-seated desires for return.
Drawing from a Buddhist discourse (AN 7:52), the author outlines a hierarchy of intentions behind generosity, from seeking posthumous rewards to a fully detached, mind-purifying gift that leads to spiritual liberation.
The Buddha’s model suggests that even giving with future expectations can bring positive outcomes—but only giving without attachment can lead to the end of suffering.
Expectations, including the desire for thanks or money, are reframed as forms of sensual desire—linked to suffering via the Second Noble Truth.
The post emphasizes that renouncing all expectations is rare and difficult, and instead encourages gentle self-inquiry and mindfulness about one’s motivations while giving.
The author concludes with a personal experiment for readers: observe the sensations and emotions that arise when giving with or without expectations, and notice how releasing those expectations may feel more liberating.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This personal reflection advocates for reducing the use of judgmental adjectives—especially negative ones—on the Effective Altruism Forum, arguing that adopting a nonviolent communication (NVC) style centered on factual observations and personal feelings can prevent conflict, foster a more welcoming environment, and make critiques more effective without compromising clarity.
Key points:
Judgmental adjectives like “bad,” “boring,” or “stupid” are subjective and can provoke defensiveness, leading to unnecessary conflict and discouraging forum participation.
The author draws from nonviolent communication (NVC), emphasizing the value of describing personal feelings and observations rather than making evaluative claims.
Even when a judgment seems accurate or widely shared, its use may still alienate others and reduce cooperation or receptivity to feedback.
Adopting less judgmental phrasing—like “I disagree” or “I found it unengaging”—can preserve meaning while minimizing emotional harm.
The heuristic suggested is to avoid judgmental adjectives in high-stakes or emotionally charged contexts, while being more relaxed in casual ones.
Positive judgments can also be problematic in some contexts, as they still represent subjective evaluations that may distort communication or expectations.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory post proposes that before making irreversible decisions, aligned AIs should cultivate philosophical “wisdom” — particularly a clearer understanding of what constitutes a catastrophic mistake — by preemptively clarifying attitudes toward difficult, foundational concepts like meta-philosophy, epistemology, and decision theory, as deferring this entirely to future AIs risks bad path dependencies and garbage-in-garbage-out dynamics.
Key points:
Definition and importance of “wisdom concepts”: These are concepts relevant to evaluating catastrophic mistakes but not objectively verifiable as right or wrong; because AI alignment may not reliably generalize to these domains, initial attitudes toward such concepts could shape long-term outcomes in irreversible ways.
Garbage-in, garbage-out risk: Deferring foundational philosophical reasoning to future AIs assumes their initial epistemic and normative attitudes are correct, but without prior grounding, this deferral may embed flawed or arbitrary assumptions.
Survey of foundational topics: The post non-exhaustively identifies and motivates key domains for philosophical clarification, including meta-philosophy, epistemology, ontology, unawareness, bounded cognition, anthropics, decision theory, and normative uncertainty.
ROMU and philosophical standards: It proposes “Really Open-Minded Updatelessness” (ROMU) as a way to allow agents to revise decisions in light of deeper philosophical reflection, yet recognizes the difficulty in specifying ROMU rigorously for bounded agents.
Implications for AI safety and governance: Cultivating philosophical wisdom in advance could mitigate path-dependent errors, resist epistemic disruption from competitive dynamics, and guide altruistic decision-making even apart from AI.
Call for foundational research: While not offering concrete prioritization, the author argues for more pre-deployment work on clarifying these wisdom concepts to reduce catastrophic risks from high-stakes but poorly understood decisions.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: While many major food companies are failing to meet their 2025 cage-free egg pledges, the global shift away from battery cages continues to gain ground, with over 300 million hens already spared and legal, corporate, and supply-side momentum steadily building—suggesting that, despite setbacks, the movement may be one of the most impactful in animal welfare history.
Key points:
Many major corporations are backtracking or stalling on their 2025 cage-free commitments, citing weak customer demand, high prices, and limited supply—though these excuses often contradict data or hide misleading practices (e.g., lack of accurate egg labeling).
Despite these setbacks, substantial progress has been made globally, with 45% of U.S., 62% of European, and 82% of British hens now cage-free, amounting to over 300 million birds spared from cages over the past decade.
Numerous companies have successfully implemented cage-free pledges, including McDonald’s, Starbucks, Amazon, Costco, and major European supermarkets—indicating that transition is feasible when prioritized.
Excuses from lagging companies often don’t hold up, with data showing cage-free eggs only marginally more expensive to produce, retailers inflating margins, and industry surveys forecasting minimal supply shortages.
Advocates are now focused on holding remaining companies accountable, expanding cage-free reforms globally (especially among multinationals), and pushing for legal protections, such as defending state-level cage bans and urging EU-wide legislation.
The movement’s scale and impact are historically significant, with advocates achieving measurable welfare gains through strategic campaigning, described as potentially “the most successful campaign in animal rights history.”
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This evidence-based analysis argues that AI safety grantmakers are significantly underqualified to evaluate political advocacy projects due to a strong staffing bias toward academic researchers, and calls for a strategic overhaul in hiring practices to include more professionals with direct political experience to avoid suboptimal funding decisions that could jeopardize the effectiveness of AI governance efforts.
Key points:
The author’s census shows nearly 4 academic researchers for every 1 political advocacy expert in major AI safety grantmaking organizations, leading to a bias in funding decisions.
Despite clear needs and opportunities for advocacy, grantmakers disproportionately fund academic research, potentially due to their own research-oriented backgrounds rather than objective impact considerations.
While grantmakers occasionally consult external political experts, these consultations are informal, inconsistently influential, and often involve junior personnel, failing to substitute for in-house advocacy expertise.
The lack of formal procedures and incentives to balance perspectives within teams increases the likelihood of decisions based on social comfort and internal relationships rather than strategic need.
The author urges funders to aggressively recruit seasoned political advocacy professionals into grantmaking teams and to advertise these roles in mainstream political job markets.
The piece critiques broader Effective Altruism practices, warning that without reform, EA’s grantmaking processes risk reinforcing epistemic bubbles and undermining high-stakes efforts like preventing AI-driven existential risks.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This in-depth critique argues that the AI 2027 forecasting models—especially their timelines to “superhuman coders”—are conceptually weak, poorly justified, and misleadingly presented, with key modeling assumptions lacking empirical support or internal consistency, despite being marketed as rigorous and widely influential.
Key points:
Fundamental issues with model structure: The AI 2027 forecast relies heavily on a “superexponential” growth curve that is mathematically guaranteed to break within a few years, lacks uncertainty modeling on key parameters (in earlier versions), and has no strong empirical or conceptual justification for its use.
Mismatch with empirical data: Neither the exponential nor the superexponential curves used in AI 2027 align well with METR’s historical benchmark data, and the forecast model fails to backcast accurately, contradicting its own assumptions about past AI progress rates.
Opaque or misleading presentation: The AI 2027 team publicly shared visualizations that do not represent their actual models and omitted key explanations or discrepancies in how some parameters (like Re-bench saturation) are handled in the simulation code, leading to potential misinterpretation of their forecast credibility.
Critique of complexity and overfitting: The benchmark-and-gaps model adds unnecessary layers of complexity without empirical validation, increasing the risk of overfitting and creating an illusion of rigor that is not substantiated by the data or methodology.
Uncertainty and caution in forecasting: The author stresses that AI forecasting is inherently uncertain, and that complex toy models like AI 2027 can give a false sense of precision; people should be cautious about basing important decisions on such speculative outputs.
Call for robustness over precision: Rather than relying on specific, fragile forecasts, the author recommends strategies and policies that are robust under extreme uncertainty in AI timelines, emphasizing humility and critical thinking in the face of unknowns.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This post compiles and analyzes numerous expert-generated lists of potential global and existential catastrophes, highlighting both areas of consensus (e.g., nuclear war, AI, climate change, pandemics) and divergence across institutions, while noting that human choices are central both to risk creation and mitigation; it is a curated resource intended to help others understand how different fields frame and prioritize future threats.
Key points:Tähtinen et al. (2024) produced the most comprehensive catalog of potential societal crises to date—153 in total—classified across six domains (political, economic, social-cultural-health, technological, legal, and environmental), revealing the breadth and complexity of perceived global threats.
UNDRR (2023) focused specifically on hazards with escalation potential, identifying ten threats—including nuclear war, pandemics, and AI-related risks—that could cascade into existential catastrophes due to characteristics like global scope, irreversibility, and systemic impact.
The World Economic Forum (2025) survey highlights short- and long-term global risks as perceived by experts, with near-term concerns centered on misinformation and conflict, and long-term fears shifting toward climate-related events—while also spotlighting inequality as a highly influential underlying risk driver.
Foundational GCR research (Ord, ÓhÉigeartaigh, Avin, Sepasspour) agrees on key existential threats (e.g., AI, nuclear weapons, pandemics, climate change) and emphasizes humanity’s role in both causing and potentially preventing these outcomes; cascading failures and systemic fragility emerge as critical concerns.
A recent horizon scan (Dal Prá et al., 2024) identifies underexplored but emerging threats like AI-nuclear integration, surveillance regimes, and the collapse of food systems, reflecting experts’ growing attention to interconnected and human-amplified risks.
Policy uptake remains uneven: While some risks like nuclear war receive consistent attention (e.g., at the UN), others—particularly newer technological risks—are underrepresented in global governance frameworks and national risk assessments, with countries varying significantly in scope and coverage.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author critiques what they call the “No Duty → No Good” fallacy in reproductive ethics, arguing that the absence of moral obligation to create happy lives doesn’t mean there’s nothing good about doing so—a mistaken inference that reflects deeper confusion about the relationship between moral value and duty.
Key points:Many people wrongly infer that if creating happy lives would imply problematic moral duties (e.g., being obligated to have many children), then it must not be good to do so—this is the “No Duty → No Good” fallacy.
Analogous reasoning in other domains (like saving lives or helping the poor) would be clearly absurd, suggesting the fallacy arises from inconsistent standards applied to reproduction.
The better explanation for rejecting procreative obligations is their excessive demandingness, not a denial of the moral value of happy lives.
The author emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between something being good and being morally required; many good actions are supererogatory rather than obligatory.
This fallacy is particularly puzzling when committed by non-consequentialists, who shouldn’t presuppose a requirement to maximize the good.
Recognizing the value of creating happy lives does not threaten liberal commitments or imply coercive policies, so fears of such consequences are unfounded.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory essay warns that even well-aligned AI systems pose a subtler threat than catastrophic failure: by gradually assuming tasks across daily life, they risk eroding essential human capacities—agency, reasoning, creativity, and social bonds—through a comfort-driven “boiled-frog” effect that may not become visible until it is difficult to reverse.
Key points:
The “comfort trap” describes a slow decline in human competence caused by consistent delegation to AI tools; over time, users stop practicing key skills because tasks become easier and faster with automation.
A simple decay model illustrates how even modest daily delegation leads to sharp drops in retained ability, unless balanced by regular practice—emphasizing that convenience accumulates silently but significantly.
Four core capacities—agency, reasoning, creativity, and social bonds—are especially vulnerable, as they underlie independent decision-making and meaningful human functioning; their erosion could shift control from humans to systems without explicit intent or notice.
Mechanisms of decline include automation bias, reduced cognitive engagement, narrowed creative exploration, and weakened social ties, all of which stem from incremental micro-hand-offs and feedback loops that disincentivize effort.
The danger often goes unnoticed due to path dependency and small-step adoption, with the loss only revealed in moments of tool failure or absence—paralleling known physiological and cognitive atrophy patterns.
Future posts will explore each capacity in depth, aiming not to reject AI, but to draw clearer boundaries between healthy delegation and harmful dependence.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.