Vaipan

• Vaipan 15 Jul 2026 12:15 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: I’m never satisfied

  I am curious to know more about the ‘get into dream project and only be able to achieve a fraction of it’ at CG and elsewhere, since as I work in an EA org, I do not really recognize this—we do cheap tests for ambitious ideas and if the results are not good enough a few months later we abort/​change the scale or ambition. It creates a feeling of unease in me that EA orgs trust people to do big things only to never have these finished, because it seems very wasteful, in terms of money at least (career capital I get it).

  On that note, I find that is one of the hardest profiles to find in EA—someone who is not only ambitious and does apply the ITN framework and other concepts in the range of counterfactuals etc but also that actually sticks to the project and make it happen/​is able to let go when things are not as effective as planned. I met plenty of folks that are smart—‘we are all smart here’ is the feeling in the room often—but persistence? That is much harder to find. If anyone has good resources on how to find these people/​design work test to identify these people, I am very happy to see it.

• Vaipan 8 Apr 2026 9:27 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: [Opinion] EA should do more to shape its pub­lic narrative

  I hear you. If you think about the School for Moral Ambition for example, it is a bit that—in a way, its EA but unweird and less about philosophy, though the core principles of effectiveness remain. There is simply more of a systemic change vibe, with the tax fairness fellowship.

  I think that we are already seeing status-seeking people get into the movement, or that is my experience as I go from conference to conference. So I am not sure how much of a risk that is. Plenty of folks laid off by USAID cuts or in general lack of hiring in big GH orgs are seeing EA as a job market. Which is good, because they are usually very talented.

  I definitely think that we should invest more in creating our own narrative because so far it has been a lot of answering to criticism rather than having our own voice. Without compromising on principles, we can still control better our image since so far people know it mostly because of scandals. It hurts me that people know more about SBF than LEEP, for example

• Vaipan 19 Jan 2026 14:00 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Has EA given up on poli­tics?

  It is interesting how so many EA think of EA as an ‘apolitical’ movement, e.g. that EA is beyond left and right because it’s data-driven and not ideology-driven.

  That does not make sense to me. Personally I’m an opportunist. When the Tories create the AISI, it’s politics. When the left endorses campaigns promoting animal welfare and plant-base options, it’s politics. When CoefficientGiving works on land reforms, it’s politics.

  I like to think in terms of cause-area and which party is the most well-placed to push for progress in these causes; which means I’m ready to collaborate with everyone who advocates for sensible things.

• Vaipan 11 Dec 2025 16:45 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: How should be­gin­ner EAs learn the ad­vanced rea­son­ing frame­works be­hind ca­reer-im­pact de­ci­sions?

  No, it is more confusing than anything. What matters is to have an impact. Impactful orgs have been doing days and years of research on what is the most cost-effective and impactful. With a basic knowledge of EA principles you can identify which organizations meet your criteria of impact and which do not, and then apply. If you get a job there, you will learn by yourself how they think about impact and refine your view. If you prefer to go to a non-EA org to make more EA-alike (like WHO or UN) then I would certainly dive deeper into the principles and metrics of impact.

  But in general I do not overwhelm people with philosophical conundrums. humility, scout mindset and solid skill-building are what matters to me.

• Vaipan 19 Sep 2025 8:09 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Trym Braathen🔸’s comment on: Long-dis­tance de­vel­op­ment policy

  Was going to say that! Its incredible how we give little attention to cash flows and how every proposition to change it is being shut down.

• Vaipan 26 Sep 2024 9:00 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Any­one have plans for Petrov Day (26 Sept)?

  We will organize a viewing of Oppenheimer in our office for our community and have a debate afterward: what would have the movie looked like if it was about AI?

• Vaipan 31 Jul 2024 12:42 UTC

  12 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: AMA: Re­think Pri­ori­ties’ Wor­ld­view In­ves­ti­ga­tion Team

  Have you ever considered interacting with policy institutes/​political commissions (EU commission, national parliaments, etc) to spread the word about effective allocation of resources, similar trends that could be followed by some governmental departments?

  The second one is more daring, but I’m curious. How much does OpenPhilantropy and its council of advisors rely/​apply your advice? For example, you wrote a very interesting sequence on value maximisation and one insight was that animal welfare was a winner on the short and longterm, but that does not translate at all in OP current funding allocation given the recent reductions in animal welfare budget/​grant-criteria tightening when it comes to animal projects?

• Vaipan 16 Jul 2024 13:09 UTC

  3 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: Are older peo­ple over­looked within EA? If so, how should we change that?

  This is true, and in our EA group, we are establishing an outreach model to attract them. So far here’s why they don’t get involved:

  • Mood at EA event is very young and excited, and connecting is harder for older people since they have different interests/​lifestyles (not everyone can ‘optimize’ each step of their lives when they have kids and such). Communication norms are also different.

  • Career opportunities are much harder to find and grasp for experienced people: it’s not as easy to go three months do a fellowship somewhere and leave your family behind, or change countries to find the perfect job because there are few effective opportunities in your country. We’re improving that by working on a mapping of EA-likeminded institutions, but it’s nascent work, not that supported by 80k.

  • Many feel that their experience isn’t valued and appreciated by EA members, when it’s often a contest of who has read this and that but not so much learning from experienced members.

    So yeah, as long as EA won’t have a clear strategy of cooperation with other institutions (for example, the UN is often discarded efficiency-wise, but no good research proves this!), and as long as behavioural norms won’t change, it”s going to be hard. We trying to reach a tipping point of 25% of experienced people for the mood to change, but it’s hard.

[Question] EA folks in Prague, 2-7th of July?

• Vaipan 24 Jun 2024 13:39 UTC

  10 points

  3 ∶ 0

  on: Why I’m leaving

  You are not alone, definitely not alone.

  As a community builder, I have several people telling me this on a frequent basis. It’s nice to be able to follow good charities on Twitter, but that does not make up for the direction of the funding and therefore the opportunities and projects that are actually selected and funded, or the fact that most posts on the forum are now about AI given the sharp increase in AI-interested people (who do not necessarily have a past with EA, or altruism, as in giving etc). It does not make up for the fact that most people enter EA through 80k and get the feeling that they have to get into AI to be impactful, given the priorities. Or the fact that your chance to be coached by 80k is much greater if you want to work in longtermistic matters.

  There is really a turning point in the movement, few actors are reacting against it, there is no real counter movement and most people in power do not speak up against this, even though they might have a more nuanced view on funding distribution than what is actually happening.

  Maybe it will be one of these cases where the audience of one community changes completely, and thus becomes a different organization. It makes me very sad—there is no replacement to EA. No, global aid economics are not ‘GH’ in EA. No, animalistic parties cannot replace the work done by some EA orgs. It’s a question to all: will we silently abide and passively go along the movement, whatever it becomes, or will we just have to exit EA? The latter is already happening a lot.

• Vaipan 22 May 2024 8:56 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 2

  in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Why hasn’t there been any sig­nifi­cant AI protest

  Well you said it: STEM is what makes the very big difference here. A ‘leftwing’ STEM will not have the same priorities at all than a social science student, so this leftwing label is very misleading, no matter how much people like to use it here to claim that EA is leftist.

  A STEM student will have much more contempt towards protests, and what you conveniently forget to say is that STEM students are in general earning much more and come from much more privileged backgrounds. It’s all about resources and how they are distributed, and so these students are in much less need to go out in the streets. So it’s easier to look down on protests and think that these protests are just noisy and useless.

  So my answer still stands and explains why EA is not protest-friendly.

• Vaipan 21 May 2024 12:34 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 1

  on: Why hasn’t there been any sig­nifi­cant AI protest

  Protests are usually done by those in dire need of change: minorities, poor people, people whose identity is attacked, etc. AI risks are overwhelmingly highlighted by rich white male engineers: not those who usually have a reason to go out in the streets. And as Geoffrey says, who despise those who do—it’s easier to mock those who struggle when you don’t, assuming that they make unnecessary noise because you don’t feel at all part of their fight.

  And now EAs realize that profit is taking over safety concerns—it took a lot of time! It was painful to read Altman’s praising until the board shuffling at OpenAI. It’s been years that people protest because greed and unequal distribution of money make their own lives poorer and harder; but now greed causes survival risks that also extend to rich engineers, so they have to do something.

• Vaipan 16 May 2024 14:20 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 1

  in reply to: huw’s comment on: EA Sur­vey: Cause Prioritization

  Of course. It is much easier for privileged individuals to relate to the suffering of minds that do no exist yet compared to the very real suffering of people and animals today that force you to confront your emotions and uneasiness towards those who have so little when you have so much.

  The divide between gender and cause-area is obvious (not just from this study but also from my own EA group!). Women in general care much more about GHD and animal welfare and dislike fixing technological issues with yet another technology; they want more systemic change. That some privileged men who benefit from the current status quo do not want to change the current power dynamics and prefer to think about future beings who do not have a voice yet to feel useful is hard to deny.

  Sadly I have not seen any research mixing gender dynamics and longtermist urgency.

• Vaipan 16 May 2024 14:17 UTC

  9 points

  3 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Grayden 🔸’s comment on: EA Sur­vey: Cause Prioritization

  I agree. We have to take into account that 80k strongly pushed for careers in AI safety, encouraged field building specifically for AI safety, and the job board has become increasingly dominated by AI safety job offers. And the trend is not likely to be reversed soon.

  However, that does not keep people outside of EA to obtain jobs in the GHD field (which is not just development economics, as someone wrote one day); they are just not accounted for. And if the movement keep giving opportunities and funding specifically towards AI safety, sure we’ll get less and less GHD people. So it’s still impressive, taking all this funding concentration, that we get so many EAs that still consider GHD as the most pressing cause-area.

• Vaipan 16 May 2024 13:08 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Rebecca2’s comment on: Im­pact­ful ca­reer as a lawyer spe­cial­ized in Green Build­ing Stan­dards?

  Thanks! Will look.

• Vaipan 16 May 2024 13:08 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: John C’s comment on: Im­pact­ful ca­reer as a lawyer spe­cial­ized in Green Build­ing Stan­dards?

  That’s a clever one, thanks!

[Question] Im­pact­ful ca­reer as a lawyer spe­cial­ized in Green Build­ing Stan­dards?

• Vaipan 15 May 2024 0:03 UTC

  4 points

  2 ∶ 2

  on: In DC, a new wave of AI lob­by­ists gains the up­per hand

  It is always appalling to see tech lobbying power shut down all the careful work done by safety people.

  Yet the article highlights a very fair point: that safety people have not succeeded at being clear and convincing enough about the existential risks posed by AI. Yes, it’s hard, yes it’s a lot about speculations. But that’s exactly where impact lies : trying to have a consistent and pragmatic discourse about AI risks, that is not uselessly alarmist or needlessly vague.

  The state of the EA community is a good example of that. I often hear that yes, risks are high, but what risks exactly, and how can they be quantified? Impact measurement is awfully vague when it comes to AI safety (and a minor measure, AI governance).

• Vaipan 11 Apr 2024 8:42 UTC

  3 points

  3 ∶ 5

  on: Sum­mary: Mis­takes in the Mo­ral Math­e­mat­ics of Ex­is­ten­tial Risk (David Thorstad)

  I wish this was more well-known and read in the EA community. So far I have not seen any credible objections to these three compelling arguments. Perils or not perils, these arguments are still valid on their own.

• Vaipan 8 Apr 2024 8:02 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Joseph Lemien’s comment on: Con­sid­er­ing pledg­ing but haven’t? Help us un­der­stand!

  Hey Joseph,

  I am exactly in the same boat, very specialized path and lack of financial visibility. I also work for an EA org, which means that I chose a pay cut (and the role is time-constrained in terms of funding) compared to other jobs that could be safer (consulting, etc).

  But recently, I’ve been thinking about the fact that donating is a bit like starting a new sport class or any new habit; if you don’t start, you’ll never start (except under ideal conditions but that rarely happens!). Accepting a bit of risk to accomplish something that you care a lot about makes sense for me, which is why I will start giving soon. There will never be a threshold of financial safety where I’ll feel completely safe, so waiting will not do good to me.

  Also, inflation means that all my careful savings are losing value right now, so I’m realizing that I would be better off spending a part of it now rather than wait and see their value slowly disappearing.

  This is only my choice; I just wanted to comment since I am a bit in the same case but came to think differently about it recently. Also just want to empathize with your situation. Sometimes I feel bad when I see that some of my colleagues have been giving for ten years, but again, we clearly were not given the same set of circumstances at birth.