Toby Tremlett🔹

• Toby Tremlett🔹 13 Mar 2026 16:18 UTC

  14 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: to­bytrem’s Quick takes

  If you work in an office with other EAs/​ interesting and interested people, consider putting the debate slider from our upcoming debate on a big whiteboard. It can lead to some interesting conversations, and even better, some counterfactual forum posts.
  

  

  PS- I’m aware this looks a bit ‘people selling mirrors’

• Toby Tremlett🔹 12 Mar 2026 9:40 UTC

  4 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Anna Pitner’s comment on: Your out­reach is writ­ten for peo­ple who already agree with you

  Thanks for taking this so well Anna!

  I felt a similar way—I see so much AI text online that I actually struggle to read it when I see it. However I also see that there are a lot of other readers who don’t have this reaction, so take this with a pinch of salt.
  If you’re looking for tips at all, I’d recommend:

  a) Taking a post like this as your penultimate draft, and then writing a much shorter post in your own words based on it. OR...
  b) Making sure your system prompt contains a distilled version of this page as a ‘what not to do’. This is the quickest way to ensure your text doesn’t come across as too AI-written.

  Also—thanks for disclosing the LLM use, that made me trust the content much more.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 12 Mar 2026 9:22 UTC

  6 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Stefan_Schubert’s comment on: Ste­fan_Schu­bert’s Shortform

  FWIW, it is a very good newsletter.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 10 Mar 2026 10:17 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: ishankhire’s comment on: AGI & An­i­mals De­bate Week: March 23 − 29

  Fair point, but the polls don’t work particularly well for questions rather than statements. Plus we have comments you can attach to your vote so, for example if you thought there was an 85% chance, I’d recommend being most of the way to agreeing, and then commenting to explain your view.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 6 Mar 2026 15:15 UTC

  15 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: EA is un­der­fund­ing an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy ac­cord­ing to our own preferences

  I’m curating this because it strikes me as an important piece of collective knowledge, and I’d like to further incentivise people to share takes like this.

An­nounc­ing: AGI & An­i­mals De­bate Week

• Toby Tremlett🔹 6 Mar 2026 9:46 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Help me re­fine the Fo­rum’s-choice de­bate topic

  Planning to post the announcement today. Currently a little confused about whether to refer to transformative AI or artificial general intelligence. Transformative AI assumes a certain worldview, or at least assumes that AI will be transformative in some fairly radical way. If we discuss AGI, we might just be talking about a slightly more productive humanity and whether that will be good for animals, which feels like a very non-interesting question in comparison.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 5 Mar 2026 11:51 UTC

  13 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: to­bytrem’s Quick takes

  There have been a lot of posts over the last couple of weeks, and when I’ve been putting together the Digests, I’ve seen several which seem criminally underrated.

  I’m quick-taking to remind you of the ‘customize feed’ feature. The link is at the top of the frontpage—click it to decide how your frontpage weights posts on different topics. If Forum readers used this more, there would be less underrated posts (I think!).

• Toby Tremlett🔹 4 Mar 2026 16:21 UTC

  5 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: Do­ing Pri­ori­ti­za­tion Better

  I’m interested in finding ways the EA Forum could better promote cross-cause (as well as within cause) prioritisation, for example through events, or even commissioning posts. I’d be very happy to heard ideas from Forum readers/​ the authors of this post.
  
  I’d also be interested in hearing if you think the EA Forum isn’t (and/​or could not be) suited for this purpose. FWIW my guess is that the Forum would be better at surfacing ideas, critiques and considerations, and then someone generally has to be paid for very sustained focus on a prioritisation question (though with AI progress, who knows).

• Toby Tremlett🔹 4 Mar 2026 16:12 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jim Buhler’s comment on: Help me re­fine the Fo­rum’s-choice de­bate topic

  I wasn’t sure at first because it seemed so simple—but that formula seems to work really well.

  One possible downside is that its simplicity means the audience has to make more inferential leaps themselves to understand what we are getting at with the statement. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing—It’s good if the audience has to be a bit engaged in order to vote.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 4 Mar 2026 8:30 UTC

  −1 points

  0 ∶ 1

  in reply to: Andrew Roxby’s comment on: Help me re­fine the Fo­rum’s-choice de­bate topic

  Thanks Andrew. Most of what I can say is this:

  As with most internal wranglings, there isn’t much that it’s rational for me to share here, so I probably can’t answer your further questions.

  I’d like to make it very clear that me and Sarah think it is important that the EA movement has these conversations (and that we both favour transparency where possible). As of now, all I can say is that:

  1. We may be able to run one of the top two voted debates later in the year. I’ll let you know if this becomes possible.

  2. Our politics on the EA Forum policy remains this.

  Just to add—this is frustrating to us too, and I am hopeful that we will be able to host this debate week later in the year. This was not an arbitrary decision—and I would prefer if it made sense for us to share more, but it does not.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 3 Mar 2026 9:39 UTC

  4 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Seth Ariel Green 🔸’s comment on: Seth Ariel Green ’s Quick takes

  I really appreciate this Seth :) The norms that Mo links below are the official answer to this, we use them when we moderate. We’re working on a version which is shorter/​catchier so it can appear in some form for new users.

  So far I’ve been sending people messages similar to your gentle counselling. Perhaps I should consider doing them as public comments—it looks like yours have gone down well.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 3 Mar 2026 9:35 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: titotal’s comment on: Help me re­fine the Fo­rum’s-choice de­bate topic

  I think the question is still worth discussing if you believe that AI progress is much more gradual or will stall out at humanish levels of intelligence.

  Interesting. I was imagining that the question would have to be about some sort of locked-in super-intelligence. If we are talking about AGI systems which aren’t drastically affecting the priorities that humanity has for itself, the question seems like a very obvious no (in other words—no AGI won’t be good for animals, or bad for them).

  And then theres the typical question of what “aligned” means: aligned to who or what?

  You’re right—it’d be frustrating if we just ended up having this debate for a week. That’s what tempts me about “AGI which doesn’t cause human extinction or disempowerment” (though those terms are ambiguous too of course).

• Toby Tremlett🔹 2 Mar 2026 16:06 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: EdoArad🔸’s comment on: Help me re­fine the Fo­rum’s-choice de­bate topic

  Thanks Edo!

  I like that debate topics aren’t overly operationalized.

  I agree, but there are better and worse ambiguities to spend our time discussing. For example “What is AGI” is a rabbit-hole, but ultimately not that interesting/​ action-relevant.

  “Sentient beings”—Here I think the discussion should be contained to nonhuman animals because the other case seemed to be handled in the previous AI welfare debate.

  I’m definitely leaning this way too.

  I think that an operationalization which is too close to people’s actual decisions may cause more people to defend their existing views or to take a stance based on what’s more salient.

  Yes, my ideal would always be that someone discusses a crux, arrives at an answer, and only then realises that it should influence their cause prioritisation.

Help me re­fine the Fo­rum’s-choice de­bate topic

• Toby Tremlett🔹 2 Mar 2026 11:55 UTC

  4 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Fran’s comment on: CEA’s re­sponse to sex­ual harassment

  Thank you for recognising that act of bravery. Yours weren’t that scary tbh, but Lara’s appear each time I close my eyes.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 2 Mar 2026 8:57 UTC

  21 points

  7 ∶ 1

  on: CEA’s re­sponse to sex­ual harassment

  I’ve got so much admiration for you Frances, and I’m so sad that you had to be as brave as you have been.

  Cowardice is such a good frame for understanding inaction from bystanders. The desire for everything to be normal and fine is so strong, but we have to fight against it when it just isn’t true. I’ll be thinking about your words if I find myself in a situation like this.

  Thanks so much for sharing what you’ve been through and sharing this valuable analysis. There’s no expectation on you to have any distance from this situation—what you’ve written is deeply impressive.

  (written in personal capacity—not privy to any other info than contained in this post)

• Toby Tremlett🔹 26 Feb 2026 9:51 UTC

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Clara Torres Latorre 🔸’s comment on: Draft Amnesty: 23 Feb − 1 March

  Realistically it will still get downvoted, but I’m less likely to move something to personal blog for being low quality if it is a draft amnesty post.

• Toby Tremlett🔹 25 Feb 2026 10:00 UTC

  5 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: Men­tal Health: Large, Ne­glected, and More Cost-Effec­tive Than We Think?

  Small note but this seems false: “directly increasing wellbeing without ethical tradeoffs (e.g., no “meat-eater problem”)”

  If mental health interventions increase the number of DALYs in the world, then they definitely run into the meat eater problem (where each year of human life will cause X years of animal suffering).

  Not making any particular comment on the meat eater problem here, just commenting to point out that you can’t avoid trade-offs this easily :)

What would you like some­one to write?