The statement we will be debating for the forum-choice debate week will be based on: "By default, the world where AI goes well for humans will also go well for other sentient beings".

The debate week will be held during the week of March 23 — 29.

This post is primarily to finalise the topic we will be discussing, and to ask for input from the Forum on the exact phrasing. However, I’m sure a bunch of readers who were following the vote for the forum-choice debate week will be wondering — why did the third-place entry win? I’ll address that first.

Why the third place entry won

In the voting post, in a footnote, I wrote: “Again, generic caveat here: there are legal and practical reasons that CEA might want to veto a topic. I personally think this is very unlikely, but we do reserve the right to veto if necessary. In the case of a veto, we'd move to the second highest karma topic.”

Unfortunately, what I thought was unlikely has indeed happened[1]. Extra unfortunately, we have vetoed the first two topics. As with most internal wranglings, there isn’t much that it's rational for me to [...]

---

Outline:

(00:43) Why the third place entry won

(01:54) Refining the statement

(02:16) Ambiguities:

(02:52) A few refined versions

(02:57) On the margin, it is better for animals to work on the transition to AGI going well, than directly working on AI for animal welfare

(04:24) Without extra animal-focused work, even aligned superintelligence would be bad for non-human animals

(04:57) AGI which doesnt cause human extinction or disempowerment will value animal welfare

(05:15) Leave your feedback below

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

I’m writing in my personal capacity, not on behalf of Animal Advocacy Africa.

TL;DR

Almost all funding for effective animal advocacy in Africa comes from donors in the Global North. That's understandable (and often essential), but we may be underestimating the value and feasibility of cultivating local giving ecosystems in LMICs, including in Africa.

Local donors likely matter for more than just “more money”: they can shift which questions get asked, what feels legitimate, and how resilient a movement is if global attention or funding priorities change.

The issue

I work at Animal Advocacy Africa (AAA), where we help build the effective farmed animal advocacy movement across [...]

---

Outline:

(00:18) TL;DR

(00:50) The issue

(01:48) Why this matters

(03:55) This seems tractable

(05:13) A common objection

(06:43) A call for discussion

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

I wrote a draft on this a long time ago, thought I can publish it during draft amnesty, realized that it's pretty out of date and ended up spending a lot of time improving it. I'm confident about the questions and problems I raise here. I'm much less confident about what should be done about them or specific examples I provide.
These are my personal opinions, it doesn't reflect the opinions of any organizations I'm affiliated with. Thanks to Ben Anderson, Ceren Karabulut and Bahadır Şirin for feedback.

Two-sentence summary: Health progress at scale comes from stronger health systems, and there are probably cost-effective interventions to strengthen health systems in LMICs. EA has engaged little, and late, with finding what those interventions are in my opinion.

Actual Summary

EA has a strong track record of finding, funding, and founding cost-effective delivery NGOs, and has saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the process. It has a weak track record of conducting research, founding organizations, or funding programs aimed at effectively strengthening health systems that fail to serve people who need to be saved by philanthropists.

The historical record suggests that large-scale health gains usually from stronger health systems [...]

---

Outline:

(04:54) Section 0. Effective Charity and Effective Development Are Different Activities

(09:09) Section 1: Global Health Reflects the Distinction

(12:30) 2. What I Mean by Health Systems Strengthening

(18:38) 3. EAs Portfolio Converged on a Specific Approach, For Understandable Reasons

(22:58) 4. The USAID Cuts Revealed the Distinction in Practice

(27:48) 4.1: Methodology Interlude: Cost-Effectiveness of Unlocking Government Programs

(30:16) 5. Recent Diversification Is Good, But Came Late and Remains Narrow

(33:32) 6. Why This Gap Persists

(39:16) 7. Some Potential Directions

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Commenting and feedback guidelines:
Keep one and delete the rest (or write your own):

1. I'm posting this to get it out there. I'd love to see comments that take the ideas forward, but criticism of my argument won't be as useful at this time.
2. This draft lacks the polish of a full post, but the content is almost there. The kind of constructive feedback you would normally put on a Forum post is very welcome.
3. This is a Forum post that I wouldn't have posted without the nudge of Draft Amnesty Week. Fire away! (But be nice, as usual)

The simplest way to have more impact across your entire lifespan is to scale up your earnings, but don’t scale up your lifestyle.

This is an “earn to give” strategy, so it should apply to nearly every EA. Even if you are working for an effective cause at an effective organization, you should be earning a living wage that includes enough headroom to tithe. (If you're not, I’m sure folks at the Centre for Effective Altruism would love [...]

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Summary

There is significant pressure in research communities to use LLMs like ChatGPT or Claude for research writing tasks. This includes summarising documents, brainstorming ideas, core writing and grammar / editing.

It has gotten to the point where, if you mention a research idea, people routinely respond "ask Claude," or "ask ChatGPT". The assumption is that researchers should no longer work alone on tasks, and should always work in AI-human teams, where the human takes the back seat.

I argue that LLMs should not be used for any core writing tasks or brainstorming, in any research activity. I'm open to the idea that they should be used to summarise large amounts of information, search queries, data crunching, editing and grammar.

My view comes from seeing firsthand the harms AI writing is causing to researchers. I have directly seen (i) deskilling, (ii) over-reliance, (iii) bias and errors of reasoning, (iv) gradual disempowerment.

I'm also concerned that AI writing distorts the job market, making unqualified candidates seem better than they are, leading to negative hiring outcomes.

Brief Background

AI writing seems like a natural thing to rely on. You can quickly generate ideas, generate drafts and generate feedback. The adoption [...]

---

Outline:

(00:11) Summary

(01:25) Brief Background

(02:18) A. Origins of My Concern

(03:40) Risks of Using AI for Research Writing

(05:07) The Groupthink Problem Elaborated

(06:16) A Brief Refutation of Counterarguments:

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

TL;DR: Define your line that if crossed, you would consider this issue one of (if not the most) pressing issues, or at least pressing enough to warrant some of your time.

I want to start with a clarification that I learned while writing this post. In the United States, charities with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status are permitted to discuss policy and engage in advocacy, but are prohibited from participating in partisan political campaigns. I have also read the EA Forum post Politics on the EA Forums and I believe this post is consistent with those norms. I am not advocating for or against any party, candidate, or electoral campaign. The question I want to raise is broader: whether creeping authoritarianism, anti-fascism, and authoritarian lock-in should be discussed more explicitly in EA spaces as subjects of analysis and concern. Although my own experience is local to me in Canada, the question is clearly relevant to the current situation in the United States and globally.

I’m asking this sincerely: why isn’t anti-fascism a bigger topic at EAG events or on this forum? I was thinking about it while planning my trip to EAG San Francisco 2026. Should I be travelling to [...]

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

The cause of human intelligence amplification (aka HIA, human intelligence enhancement, human intelligence augmentation) seems to have very little discussion on this forum; those terms (in quotations) give only a handful of search results. I think this is a big mistake. In particular, I think that reprogenetics is a good cause area that should get more resources.

Reprogenetics is biotechnology used to empower parents to make genomic choices on behalf of their future children. Reprogenetics would most likely work for HIA, is morally good, and is likely technically feasible and acceleratable.

Let's have a discussion about this. We can talk here in comments. If you have substantial thoughts / a strong position against, we could have a discussion or debate on a call and post it to YouTube.

At a meta level, it may be that EA as a whole (or all the individual EAs, mysteriously) have simply dismissed HIA in general or reprogenetics in particular. In other words, some decision has already been made to not pursue those causes, and this decision is not open for discussion or debate. That would prima facie go against the ideals of EA. I think that would be ok [...]

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

OpenAI's new deal to deploy AI models on U.S. Department of War classified network:

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/27/openai-strikes-deal-with-pentagon-hours-after-rival-anthropic-was-blacklisted-by-trump.html

I think I’m not alone in this assessment, but @80,000 Hours should remove all OpenAI roles from their job board and amend any articles they’ve published recommending working at OpenAI.

We had these discussions before on the forum:

80,000 hours should remove OpenAI from the Job Board (and similar EA orgs should do similarly) — EA Forum

---

Outline:

(00:11) OpenAIs new deal to deploy AI models on U.S. Department of War classified network:

(01:40) I think Im not alone in this assessment, but @80,000 Hours should remove all OpenAI roles from their job board and amend any articles theyve published recommending working at OpenAI.

---

First published:

Source:

---

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.

Disclaimer: This post isn't a critique of any grant-making or research organisation I know of - I imagine most of them think about cost-effectiveness in a nuanced way, rather than falling into the traps I describe below. However, I do think some individuals fall into these traps, and I thought it could be valuable to the community to capture these ideas in writing.

The potential problem with cost-effectiveness (in animal advocacy)

We can all agree that we want to get the most impact for our buck when we direct resources. A central EA practice, therefore, is to seek out cost-effective projects - those which maximise impact per dollar spent.

In principle, this is great. In practice, if you're an animal advocate, it leads to tricky territory.

It's one thing to assess projects' cost-effectiveness when you are clear on what "impact" actually means. If we are optimising for "lives saved" - as is common in the global health space - then it's sensible to compare different projects and choose the ones which save the most lives per dollar. Likewise, if we're optimising for the reduction of near-term animal suffering, then we can compare welfare improvement projects using a [...]

---

Outline:

(00:32) The potential problem with cost-effectiveness (in animal advocacy)

(03:32) When cost-effectiveness clearly makes sense

(04:50) So what about when things arent so clear-cut?

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

TL;DR. We're looking for people who want to write books that can shape narratives and help establish their authors as thought leaders. A list of 10 book ideas follows, mostly around meta-EA and farmed animal causes. If you have an idea for a book that might fit the pattern (also in other topics), or you think someone should publish a book about their ideas, read more and maybe get in touch.

Hi EA Forum,

I’m the founder of Worldshapers. We’re a relatively new nonprofit aiming to build cultural capital and discussion around ideas that make the world better. We help people write and publish books and promote authors and their ideas to ensure they reach the audiences they are targeting. Our theory of change isn’t that books will change the world, but that our shared narratives will. Publishing a book is one great way of getting a person's name out there: a book is a marketable event, and that marketing can be more targeted than the actual readership will be.

We’ve recently published three books with our own imprint, Books of Change, and some of our other participants have either signed a publishing deal or a literary agent to [...]

---

Outline:

(02:11) How To Care: Make Progress Toward a Better World Without Being Overwhelmed

(02:48) Trust and Evidence: Trust-Based Philanthropy That Creates Lasting Change

(03:22) The Portfolio Philanthropist: Funding Under Uncertainty

(03:58) The Fieldbuilders Handbook: How to Create Momentum for Neglected Problems

(04:32) Better Decisions, Faster: Methods for Making Fewer Mistakes at Scale

(05:07) The Protein Policy Playbook: A Governors Guide to The Future of Food

(05:46) Food Security Is National Security: Feeding People Through Shocks, Disruptions, and Scarcity

(06:45) Nugget: The History and Future of Americas Favorite Food

(07:18) Wild Ambition: The Growing Movement Behind Wild Animal Welfare

(07:50) Success on Aisle Six: How to Build a Grocery Retail Food Brand From Idea to National Distribution

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.