EA Forum Podcast (All audio)

This competition entry has been selected for publication by the Forum team.

1. Introduction

Here's Anthony DiGiovanni's unawareness argument, quoted from his summary post (footnotes omitted):

Let's say that we c-prefer A over B if the reason we prefer A is an impartial altruistic comparison of the actions’ possible consequences.

P1. Normative premise: To justify c-preferring A over B, it's not enough to say (e.g.) that A seems heuristically good. Rather, we need to argue that A has higher “expected value” broadly speaking, meaning: In some sense we “expect” that, if we were idealized agents who could aggregate all of A's and B's possible consequences into literal EVs, then we’d say A has higher EV. (We ourselves don’t need literal EVs to justify c-preferences, hence the scare quotes.) Otherwise, it's unacceptably arbitrary to c-prefer A.

P2. Conceptual premise: If our understanding of A's and B's possible consequences is sufficiently coarse-grained, then we don’t have an argument for “expecting” our idealized self's EV for A to be higher, lower, or equal to B's. So A's and B's “EVs” are incomparable. In particular:

a. Against precise EVs: We shouldn’t represent actions’ degrees of c-preferability with literal precise expected values.

b. Against [...]

---

Outline:

(00:17) 1. Introduction

(03:16) 2. When can you "expect" your idealized self to assign higher EV to A than B?

(04:44) 3. A challenge to P1

(08:21) 4. A challenge to the inference

(13:43) 5. The relevant mixed actions might be hard to find

(16:22) 6. Does our rule guide clueless agents?

(19:24) 7. Conclusion

The original text contained 20 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

August 17th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Bw8H9tGyNrnZx2mfo/challenging-the-unawareness-argument-with-third-actions-and

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

Epistemic status: Wrote this pretty fast, probably ~70% confident some version of the thesis claim is true, would welcome being proven demonstrably wrong.

Context: I’m a grantmaker focused on alt-protein and am fairly well-connected/moderately in the loop of what animal welfare grantmakers are doing.

This post was significantly inspired by “You (Yes You) Should Have A Feb 2020 Checklist For AI Policy,” which is more geared for the existing AI safety crowd but directionally a good push in general.

Thesis: I think EA non-GCR grantmakers should probably be doing more to prepare for AGI/TAI than we are, and might be on track to get caught with our pants around our legs within the next few years. We are not acting as if we’ve priced it in.

TAI Soon

Short timelines to AGI/TAI seem very plausible (like, at least 50% chance of arrival in the next 1 to 6 years). Points of evidence include:

1. The general shortening of timelines by top forecasters across the last 10 months (Kokotajlo/AI Futures Project, Greenblatt, Cotra);
2. The OpenAI HuggingFace warning shot;
3. Various public statements by frontier labs, their employees, and their executives warning about imminent recursive self improvement in 2027 or 2028;
4. Mythos saturating the METR time horizons evaluation months ago such [...]

---

First published:

August 15th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KiunDmsxsr7dnTdbm/non-ai-grantmakers-should-be-pricing-in-agi-timelines-more

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Summary

1. With new funding potentially entering the effective altruism ecosystem, we wanted to estimate how much more the wild animal welfare (WAW) movement could productively absorb. We asked organizations with a public, dedicated WAW workstream to estimate their own room for more funding (RFMF). Although this does not capture the whole movement, we believe it captures a substantive fraction of it.
2. Summed across the five organizations that took part, the estimates point to room for roughly 3.16 million dollars–8.23 million dollars in additional funding in 2027. The lower range reflects claims about how additional funding can bolster their current strategies, while the higher range reflects claims as to how substantially greater funding could be used to pursue more ambitious strategies. However, we give reasons below for why this might be an undercount.
3. We briefly discuss the merits of a dedicated WAW fund. This could give prospective large donors a clear donation option and help diversify a movement currently concentrated in scientific field-building.

Read full report

Why Estimate the RFMF for WAW Organizations?

There are good reasons to consider directing marginal funding toward WAW. Wild animals outnumber farmed animals by several orders of magnitude. Our understanding of their welfare remains [...]

---

Outline:

(00:15) Summary

(01:29) Why Estimate the RFMF for WAW Organizations?

(04:33) The Result

(05:27) Scientific Field-Building Remains Important, But WAW Must Diversify

(06:52) Does WAW Deserve a Fund of its Own?

---

First published:

August 14th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/HDpwbQjes34gkkgKn/five-wild-animal-welfare-organizations-estimate-usd3-8m-in

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

This is a cross-post of the executive summary from The Centre for Animal Life and Farming's first report. See the full report here.

We will also be hosting a webinar on 25th August 2026 to discuss these findings with the animal welfare movement.

Executive Summary

Roughly 80-90% of farmed animals live in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), yet the animal welfare movement has seen fewer milestone victories in these contexts than in High-Income Countries (HICs). The standard advocacy models used in HICs (corporate campaigning, consumer pressure, legislative reform, etc.) rely on infrastructure that is often absent in LMICs, such as formalised supply chains, consolidated corporate buyers, and strong legal enforcement.

Fortunately, the animal welfare movement is not alone in these challenges. There is a long history of field-based projects in LMICs designed to shift farming practices to improve farmer productivity, sustainability, and well-being. Collectively, this broad category of work is referred to as agricultural development (“agri-dev”). The strategies and lessons generated through this work may offer relevant and useful insights for the development of animal welfare initiatives in LMICs.Authors Karthik and Tom visiting the field office of DVARA, an agri-dev organisation in Maharashtra, India

To identify more context-driven [...]

The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

August 13th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kxxkT7XLptnCnKtsh/learning-from-agricultural-development-to-reshape-animal

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

This is from Same Page, a blog about EA-org-style management I write with Max Dalton of Forethought.

Defining slot vs. bar hiring

I’m fairly confident this distinction has been kicking around the effective altruism movement for at least eight years. I didn’t invent it, and I’m not sure who did. Claude and I couldn’t find a public write-up of the idea, so I’ve made one.

In slot hiring, an organisation decides it has a particular position to fill (or maybe two positions, or more). It runs a hiring round, picks the best candidate it finds, and makes an offer. If that person declines, it makes the offer to the next-best, and so on.

Most of the world operates in slot hiring, so it's the model most people have internalised for how organisations work.

In bar hiring, an organisation defines a threshold of fit and hires anyone above it. The strength of the candidate pool determines how many offers are made.

Thoughts on how to think about slot vs. bar hiring

An organisation wants to hire up to the point where further recruitment stops being the most valuable use of its resources.

The choice between bar and slot hiring mostly [...]

---

Outline:

(00:16) Defining slot vs. bar hiring

(01:28) Thoughts on how to think about slot vs. bar hiring

(01:55) When to slot vs. bar hire

(04:59) Navigating the bar shifting up and down

(06:52) Always be hiring

The original text contained 3 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

August 12th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wnghgHubZyQC7Jad6/slot-hiring-vs-bar-hiring

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

The AI safety ecosystem is still in need of generalists: people who will go out and solve the tasks that people who feel limited by their job description won’t address. This post will explain how to break into generalist work, then provide an important set of projects that, if completed, could strengthen many crucial parts of the AI safety ecosystem, as well as your own career.

TL;DR

If you’re looking for something concrete to do, there are a bunch of good entry points:

• Find a project: browse SPAR's Generalist Projects, join the Generalist Megastream, look through projects on Mangrove, or browse this fieldbuilding/project spreadsheet and Atlas Computing's Resilience Gap Map.
• Get support: apply to Genstream (deadline August 14), indicate interest in the Generator Residency, or check out MATS's Founding & Fieldbuilding track and Catalyst.
• Get funding: BlueDot Rapid Grants fund projects up to 10 thousand dollars; there are also quick funding opportunities and career-transition grants from Coefficient Giving and BlueDot.
• If you’re a student: join or start a university AI safety group; Pathfinder and the AI Safety Seeding Initiative can help with mentorship and funding.

The rest of the post has more detail on choosing projects, getting mentorship, and other ways to get involved.

If you’re a…

University Student: get heavily involved [...]

---

Outline:

(00:36) TL;DR

(01:40) If you're a...

(03:51) Projects that should get done

(05:00) SPAR Generalist Projects

(05:54) Mangrove

(07:07) Non-project shaped projects

(08:35) Other Project Lists

(09:24) Getting Support

(09:28) Programs

(10:08) Funding

(11:02) Advice on getting mentorship

(12:09) A final note

---

First published:

August 13th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3gaKC5xfcQYjuzQ7r/concrete-generalist-projects-in-ai-safety-and-how-to-do-them-2

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

TL;DR: The animal welfare movement has been doing advocacy wrong. If we’re serious about ending factory farming, vegans need to start running factory farms ourselves. I lay out the case below and address common objections.

The Core Argument

For decades, the animal welfare movement has operated from the outside: funding investigations, lobbying for regulation, producing documentaries, and encouraging dietary change. The results have been modest at best. Global meat consumption continues to rise.

I believe we need a fundamentally different approach. The people who care most about animal suffering should be the ones running factory farms.

Here's why.

If We Don’t Do It, Someone Worse Will

Factory farming is going to happen regardless of what we do. The demand exists. The economics are clear. If compassionate, welfare-focused vegans don’t step up to operate these facilities, they’ll be run by people who don’t care about animals at all. By entering the industry ourselves, we ensure that at least some factory farms are operated by people who are genuinely troubled by what they’re doing. This is obviously preferable to a world where all factory farms are run by people who aren’t troubled in the slightest.

We Need to Be Close [...]

---

Outline:

(00:28) The Core Argument

(01:00) If We Don't Do It, Someone Worse Will

(01:37) We Need to Be Close to the Frontier

(02:28) Responsible Farming Policies

(03:26) A Seat at the Table

(04:13) Funding the Mission

(05:20) Why not just study animals without farming them?

(06:31) Community Impacts

(07:24) Addressing Objections

(07:28) "This is just factory farming with a mission statement."

(07:53) "Your incentives will shift once you're running the operation."

(08:19) "External advocacy and regulation would be more effective."

(09:00) Aren't you providing the industry with moral cover?

(09:38) What about cognitive biases and groupthink?

(10:14) You're just enriching yourself with status, influence, and resources while socializing risks

(11:14) What's your main safety plan?

(11:49) You're just moving fast and breaking beaks

(12:03) Aren't you worried the chickens might escape and destroy you and everything you love?

(12:21) What about a coordinated pause?

(12:48) What about dialogue with China?

(12:58) What's it like to have Bernie Sanders, Steve Bannon, writers, artists, musicians, teachers, and the general public all broadly opposed to what you're doing?

(13:30) What would it take to convince you this approach is wrong?

(13:39) This plan sounds crazy

(13:48) Our Team

(14:27) Call to Action

---

First published:

August 13th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uh3JRsLdgCDtMjwbz/a-modest-proposal-why-vegans-should-start-factory-farms

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

This summer, 27 residents came to Berkeley for the first cohort of the Generator Residency, a three-month program for AI safety generalists run by Kairos and Constellation.

Residents receive mentorship from experienced generalists and researchers and are working on projects like running workshops for professionals entering AI safety, building a cross-org talent directory, supporting university AI safety groups, serving as chiefs of staff at new and growing organizations, building tools for model welfare and model spec research, and more. See more about each of their projects below.

Lateral Workshop

Seth Lifland and Jacob Brinton

We're running Lateral Workshop, a fully funded three-day program helping experienced professionals explore transitions into AI safety. Many mid-career and senior professionals have skills the field urgently needs, including organizational leadership, government experience, cybersecurity, communications, law, finance, and operations. Yet entering AI safety can be difficult because the ecosystem is unfamiliar, professional networks are limited, and the financial and reputational risks of changing careers are substantial.

Held September 11 to 13 in Berkeley, Lateral Workshop will bring together promising professionals and people already working in AI safety through expert talks, small-group discussions, one-on-one conversations, and a community mixer. The program aims to make the field [...]

---

Outline:

(00:56) Lateral Workshop

(02:26) Jeff Alstott's Chief of Staff

(03:04) Forward-deployed AI engineering for AI safety orgs

(04:17) Improving management in AI safety

(04:59) Talent Commons

(06:06) Various projects to support university groups

(06:45) Longitude DC Intensive

(07:47) Praxis: a retreat for world-class debaters, past and present

(08:46) Fellowship improvements

(09:26) Running Leaf and ecosystem support

(10:22) More Quality AI Safety Org Founders

(11:54) Supporting the AI 2040: Plan A launch

(12:37) Convening Discussions on Frontier AI

(13:11) Regional Organizers for University Talent Ecosystems

(14:22) Building the map for AI character and model specs

(15:56) Convening Team Chief of Staff

(17:25) Miscellaneous Fieldbuilding

(19:01) Other residents

(19:27) Want to do something like this?

---

First published:

August 12th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/gyPcpsgvbANjcaLdF/what-27-ai-safety-generalists-are-building-this-summer

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

A tough lesson I learned over the past few years is that it's pretty stressful to work in the “Please Don’t Build the Torment Nexus” ecosystem, especially as it increasingly seems like the world is hell-bent on building the Torment Nexus.

This is what it can feel like to be an impact-pursuing person who stumbles into the AI safety field.

It's hard to be productive when you’re stressed and anxious. And setting aside productivity, it's also just plain bad if people working on AI safety — My peers! My people! — are feeling distraught.

Anxiety about AI risk really fucking sucks. If you feel this way, you aren’t alone. I’m right by your side, biting my nails, whitening my knuckles.

But even besides me, a lot of people seem to feel this way.

How big of a problem is this?

Survey data described in Spencer Greenberg's recent 80k episode implies that mental health challenges for people working on AI safety are fairly common:

Most respondents experienced psychological challenges — the median person reported six different problems.

More than half (52%) said these challenges at least moderately hurt their effectiveness, while 45% had considered cutting back or leaving.

The most common [...]

---

Outline:

(01:03) How big of a problem is this?

(03:06) What is being done about it?

(04:18) What else should be done about it on the margin?

The original text contained 3 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

August 11th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ews9xbzjGGfR64oum/mental-health-challenges-in-the-ai-safety-ecosystem-seem

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

The current Long Term Future Fund (LTFF) fund managers and I have decided to step back from our work on the LTFF. Because we believe LTFF donors trusted the fund managers to ensure that the funds would be used in line with the purposes of their donation, we've decided the right move is to close the fund.

While LTFF is closing, note that EA Funds has launched a new fund, called the Transformative AI Fund (TAIF), with a large overlap in scope, funding early-stage projects that reduce risks from powerful AI systems, led by Lowe Lundin. It is open for applications and donations now. Some LTFF Fund managers plan to continue part-time grantmaking via the AI Risk Mitigation Fund and Lightcone Commons.

LTFF fund managers have discussed what to do with the remaining balance of the LTFF. We see our duty to LTFF donors as maximising the expected impact of the money they entrusted to us, within the scope of the fund. Closing a fund involves trade-offs in how to honour that.

With that in mind, we have decided to transfer the remaining balance to [new fund], structured as follows:

Up to three-quarters will be distributed under the direct [...]

---

Outline:

(02:04) Why are we moving on from the LTFF?

(03:06) Situational Awareness and Quickly Reorienting

(04:51) Competing Opportunities

(05:18) Institutional Friction

(06:27) Why Is EA Funds Starting a New Fund Making AI Safety Grants?

(07:00) What will happen with remaining funds?

(08:20) Why Lightcone Commons?

(10:15) Why Support the New CEA AI Focussed Fund?

(11:04) What do existing LTFF applicants need to do?

The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

August 11th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/dtZ9wbKWjtvGWDRJx/closing-the-ltff-spending-down-funds-and-a-new-ai-fund-at-ea

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.