Tobias Häberli

Karma: 1,937

Tobias Häberli 11 Dec 2025 8:47 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Yarrow Bouchard 🔸’s comment on: The funding conversation we left unfinished
Dustin Moskovitz’s net worth is $12 billion and he and Cari Tuna have pledged to give at least 50% of it away, so that’s at least $6 billion.
I think this pledge is over their lifetime, not over the next 2-6 years. OP/CG seems to be spending in the realm of $1 billion per year (e.g. this, this), which would mean $2-6 billion over Austin’s time frame.

Tobias Häberli 10 Dec 2025 17:57 UTC
6 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Yarrow Bouchard 🔸’s comment on: The funding conversation we left unfinished
lots of money will also be given to meta-EA, EA infrastructure, EA community building, EA funds, that sort of thing?
You’re probably doubting this because you don’t think it’s a good way to spend money. But that doesn’t mean that the Anthropic employees agree with you.
The not super serious answer would be: US universities are well-funded in part because rich alumni like to fund it. There might be similar reasons why Anthropic employees might want to fund EA infrastructure/community building.
If there is an influx of money into ‘that sort of thing’ in 2026/2027, I’d expect it to look different to the 2018-2022 spending in these areas (e.g. less general longtermist focused, more AI focused, maybe more decentralised, etc.).

Tobias Häberli 10 Dec 2025 17:53 UTC
6 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Yarrow Bouchard 🔸’s comment on: The funding conversation we left unfinished
Given Karnofsky’s career history, he doesn’t seem like the kind of guy to want to just outsource his family’s philanthropy to EA funds or something like that.
He was leading the Open Philanthropy arm that was primarily responsible for funding many of the things you list here:
or do you think lots of money will also be given to meta-EA, EA infrastructure, EA community building, EA funds, that sort of thing

Tobias Häberli 10 Dec 2025 17:48 UTC
20 points
4 ∶ 0
in reply to: Nathan Young’s comment on: The funding conversation we left unfinished
Had Phil been listened to, then perhaps much of the FTX money would have been put aside, and things could have gone quite differently.
My understanding of what happened is different:
- Not that much of the FTX FF money was ever awarded (~$150-200million, details).
- A lot of the FTX Future Fund money could have been clawed back (I’m not sure how often this actually happened) – especially if it was unspent.
- It was sometimes voluntarily returned by EA organisations (e.g. BERI) or paid back as part of a settlement (e.g. Effective Ventures).

Tobias Häberli 7 Dec 2025 19:42 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: A song about career planning
@Daniel_Dewey, can you prove this song wrong?

Tobias Häberli 4 Dec 2025 9:27 UTC
8 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Front-Load Giving Because of Anthropic Donors?
I’m somewhat surprised about the lack of information about Anthropic employee’s donation plans.
Potential reasons:
- They are all working full-time (probably more) and it’s really hard to get clarity on your own donation plans in such a situation. And communicating about them is even harder.
- They might have specific plans but talking about them publicly is tricky. It might imply information about Anthropics plans (e.g. regarding IPO) or about the internal sentiment about the prospect of Anthropic gaining/losing value in the future. Or just plain old ‘what happens to your inbox once you imply that you’re going to be donating >10M soon?’.
- They might not see a lot of benefit of communicating publicly about this. Maybe they are chatting with Coefficient Giving about their plans. Maybe they are planning their own foundation.
- There might just not be that many people with significant wealth at Anthropic who are planning on donating effectively anytime soon. This could be because of value drift, because they expect their assets to increase in value and want to donate later, because they don’t see great donation opportunities yet.
Interested to hear whether I’ve missed a major consideration and whether people have takes about which of these reasons is most likely/explanatory.

Tobias Häberli 23 Nov 2025 17:17 UTC
11 points
5 ∶ 0
on: OpenAI Locks Down San Francisco Offices Following Alleged Threat From Activist
The Stop AI response posted here seems maybe fine in isolation. This might have largely happened due to the Stop AI co-founder having a mental breakdown. But I would hope for Stop AI to deeply consider their role in this as well. The response of Remmelt Ellen (who is a frequent EA Forum contributor and advisor to Stop AI) doesn’t make me hopeful, especially the bolded parts:
An early activist at Stop AI had a mental health crisis and went missing. He hit the leader and said stuff he’d never condone anyone in the group to say, and apologized for it after. Two takeaways:
- Act with care. Find Sam.
- Stop the ‘AGI may kill us by 2027’ shit please.
[...]
I advised Stop AI organisers to change up the statement before they put it out. But they didn’t. How to see this is is a mental health crisis. Treat the person going through it with care, so they don’t go over the edge (meaning: don’t commit suicide). 2/
The organisers checked in with Sam everyday. They did everything they could. Then he went missing. From what I know about Sam, he must have felt guilt-stricken about lashing out as he did. He left both his laptop and phone behind and the door unlocked. I hope he’s alive. 3/
Sam panicked often in the months before. A few co-organisers had a stern chat with him, and after that people agreed he needed to move out of his early role of influence. Sam himself was adamant about being democratic at Stop AI, where people could be voted in or out. 4/
You may wonder whether that panic came from hooking onto some ungrounded thinking from Yudkowsky. Put roughly: that an ML model in the next few years could reach a threshold where it internally recursively improves itself and then plan to take over the world in one go. 5/
That’s a valid concern, because Sam really was worried about his sister dying out from AI in the next 1-3 years. We should be deeply concerned about corporate-AI scaling putting the sixth mass extinction into overdrive. But not in the way Yudkowsky speculates about it. 6/
Stop AI also had a “fuck-transhumanism” channel at some point. We really don’t like the grand utopian ideologies of people who think they can take over society with ‘aligned’ technology. I’ve been clear on my stance on Yudkowsky, and so have others. 7/
Transhumanist takeover ideology is convenient for wannabe system dictators like Elon Musk and Sam Altman. The way to look at this: They want to make people expendable. 8/
[...]

Tobias Häberli 22 Nov 2025 9:27 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Tristan Katz’s comment on: Should I Apply to a 3.5% Acceptance-Rate Fellowship? A Simple EV Calculator
Thanks a lot for engaging!
One general point: My rough guess is that acceptance rates have stayed largely constant across AI safety programs over the last ~2 years because capacity has scaled with interest. For example, Pivotal grew from 15 spots in 2024 to 38 in 2025. While the ‘tail’ likely became more exceptional, my sense is that the bar for the marginal admitted fellow has stayed roughly the same.
They might (as I am) be making as many applications as they have energy for, such that the relevant counterfactual is another application, rather than free time.
The model does assume that most applicants aren’t spending 100% of their time/energy on applications. However, even if they were, I feel like a lot of this is captured by how much they value their time. I think that the counterfactual of how they spend their time during the fellowship period (which is >100x more hours than the application process) is the much more important variable to get right.
you also need to consider the intangible value of the counterfactual
This is correct. I assumed most people would take this into account (e.g. subtract their current job’s networking value from the fellowship’s value), but I might add a note to make this explicit.
you also ought to consider the information value of applying for whatever else you might have spent the time on
I’m less worried about this one. Since we set the fixed Value of Information quite conservatively already, and most people aren’t constantly working on applications, I suspect this is usually small enough to be noise in the final calculation.
there is a psychological cost to firing out many low-chance applications
I agree this is real, but I think it’s covered in the Value of Your Time. If you earn £50/hr but find applying on the weekend fun/interesting, you might set the Value of Your Time at £5/hr. If you are unemployed but find applying extremely aversive, you might price your time at e.g., £200/hr.

Tobias Häberli 20 Nov 2025 12:36 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: DavidNash’s comment on: Open Philanthropy Is Now Coefficient Giving
Expecting “cogi ergo multiply” merch now...

Tobias Häberli 9 Nov 2025 11:24 UTC
6 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Leaving Open Philanthropy, going to Anthropic
the opportunity to make more direct contact with the reality of the dynamics presently shaping frontier AI development – dynamics about which I’ve been writing from a greater distance for many years.
You doing this well could be very valuable for the AI safety field imo. It’s hard to form accurate beliefs about these dynamics from the outside, and I see many people unsure how much to trust Anthropic. Helping clarify this could help others to make more confident and informed decisions in situations where their view of Anthropic matters.

Tobias Häberli 7 Nov 2025 21:56 UTC
14 points
1 ∶ 0
on: 12 Theses on EA
because EAs are the primary culprits in EA’s recent reputational dip
I agree, EA was just unusually fertile ground for a self-inflicted reputational dip but I don’t think that “Jumping ship” is very explanatory (outside maybe AI Policy circles). EA’s have been self-critical before EAs did bad things, many people (incl. me, guilty) have always felt uncomfortable identifying as EA. Many prominent figures also never seemed very committed to a single, persistent EA community. See for example this short exchange between Owen Cotton-Barret and Will MacAskill from 2017 (~4:30-5:30):
Owen Cotton-Barrat: When science was still relatively small, everyone could be in touch with everybody else. But now science works as a global discipline where lots of people subscribe to a scientific mindset. But there isn’t a science community, there are lots of science communities. And I think in the longterm we need something like this with effective altruism.
Will MacAskill: This sounds pretty plausible in the long-run. The question is at what stage are we analogously to scientific development?
Owen Cotton-Barrat: In the spirit of being bold, I think this is something we should be paying attention to within a decade.
Will MacAskill: Ok, that seems reasonable.

Tobias Häberli 7 Nov 2025 21:18 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: 12 Theses on EA
When I first encountered EA, the ethos was very much focused around earning to give and where to donate. There was a sense we were fans/supporters of these orgs rather than competing for jobs at them and that all of us were on equal footing no matter how much we earned, gave, or followed the news.
I’m curious what fraction of early earn-to-givers now donate to organisations their peers founded vs. still giving to ‘old’ charities (AMF, The Humane League). My loose impression is that it’s pretty low, which could be because (a) they don’t see EA startups reaching their impact bar, (b) those startups aren’t (perceived as) funding constrained, or (c) factors you describe here.

Tobias Häberli 6 Nov 2025 6:13 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: David_R 🔸’s comment on: The Protein Problem
I’d also guess that eating more protein improves public health in countries where high body weight causes health problems, since protein makes it easier to eat fewer calories.
But the largest increases in animal protein consumption are likely coming from countries that aren’t (yet) facing issues with obesity?

Tobias Häberli 29 Oct 2025 19:02 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 0
on: The End of OpenAI’s Nonprofit Era
The nonprofit will be compensated tens of billions by the for-profit entity for the removal of the caps.
1. False — The nonprofit is getting $130 billion, more than I expected, but only because OpenAI’s valuation skyrocketed.
Why is this false? The valuation in Oct. 2024 valuation was $157B, which means it has ~3.1x since. So wouldn’t the compensation of ¹³⁰⁄₃.1 = ~$42B still be “tens of billions” in May 2025 terms?

Tobias Häberli 29 Oct 2025 16:45 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: The End of OpenAI’s Nonprofit Era
I’ve found the following diagram of the approx. stakes of OpenAI stakeholders useful for understanding the situation:

Tobias Häberli 27 Oct 2025 14:37 UTC
9 points
3 ∶ 0
on: Should I tell EA orgs I’ll work for much less than advertised?
Interesting question. Some potentially tangential considerations:
- Many organisations have salary policies that could prevent flexible setups like this.
- Some organisations adjust salaries for cost-of-living (e.g. GWWC adjusts 50% of the salary). The metrics for these adjustments are often uncertain and may not reflect the true local cost-of-living. If you can show that their adjustment is too conservative, you might convince them to lower your salary while keeping with their salary policy.
- Some organisations might have a setup that allows a voluntary salary reduction.

Tobias Häberli 7 Oct 2025 20:25 UTC
7 points
0 ∶ 0
on: TobiasH’s Shortform
Pivotal is hiring a Research Manager for Technical AI Safety. This could be a great fit if you’re technical, enjoy being in the weeds of multiple research projects, love 1:1s, or could see yourself as a coach. You don’t need to be an experienced RM already, we want to make you one! Apply here – we evaluate on a rolling basis. Recommend people here or to me directly.

Tobias Häberli 3 Oct 2025 16:52 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Toby Tremlett🔹’s comment on: Omelas Is Perfectly Misread
Thanks, Toby & titotal!
Fair, ‘misreading’ is a strong word for what’s going on. I find it somewhat justified because of how much less plausible the ‘standard reading’ becomes once you engage with the whole story. I tried to address the weirdness of disagreeing with the author in the last section.
I didn’t intend this post to be a gotcha. Sorry if it comes across this way!
I also agree that it’s fine for people to repurpose stories. There are likely many people with “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less travelled by. And that has made all the difference.” posters, who derive a lot of value from them, which is good. But it’s still interesting to me that those posters misread the poem, and that how common this misreading is may reveal something broader about the readers & what they want to get out of literature.

Tobias Häberli 30 Sep 2025 4:26 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Geoffrey Miller’s comment on: Geoffrey Miller’s Quick takes
You mention having “an ambition, even a prayer for [the AI developers]” (~12 min). You might mean this figuratively, but many viewers of that channel will probably take it literally. When you admit elsewhere that you don’t believe in god and don’t practice any religion, they likely see this as a contradiction and suspect you’re not being genuine once you become more popular.
My guess is that it’s better to be upfront about not being a Christian in order to retain authenticity. You’ll probably always be regarded as an outsider by the conservative right (just for another example: your twitter handle includes ‘poly’, and you’ve spoken at length online about being polyamorous), but you could hope to be perceived as ‘the outsider who gets us’. This kinda worked for a while for Sam Harris or Milo Yiannopoulos.

Tobias Häberli 28 Sep 2025 18:25 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Camille’s comment on: Camille’s Quick takes
Trend stayed ~4x higher than previous. My guess is the drop after 13. Sept. is due to data collection.

Could it be due to “If anyone builds it anyone dies”?