Introduction to the Digital Consciousness Model (DCM)

Artificially intelligent systems, especially large language models (LLMs) used by almost 50% of the adult US population, have become remarkably sophisticated. They hold conversations, write essays, and seem to understand context in ways that surprise even their creators. This raises a crucial question: Are we creating systems that are conscious?

The Digital Consciousness Model (DCM) is a first attempt to assess the evidence for consciousness in AI systems in a systematic, probabilistic way. It provides a shared framework for comparing different AIs and biological organisms, and for tracking how the evidence changes over time as AI develops. Instead of adopting a single theory of consciousness, it incorporates a range of leading theories and perspectives—acknowledging that experts disagree fundamentally about what consciousness is and what conditions are necessary for it.

Here, we present some of the key initial results of the DCM. The full report is now available here.

We will be hosting a webinar on February 10 to discuss our findings and answer audience questions. You can find more information and register for that event here.

Why this matters

It is important to assess whether AI systems might be conscious in a [...]

---

Outline:

(00:13) Introduction to the Digital Consciousness Model (DCM)

(01:31) Why this matters

(02:51) Why estimating consciousness is a challenging task

(03:38) How the model works

(05:38) How to interpret the results

(07:57) Key findings

(10:18) What's next

(10:56) Acknowledgments

---

First published:

January 23rd, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ojLqrYgrEdqWNgb8H/digital-consciousness-model-results-and-key-takeaways

---

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 a link post.

I have been reading Eric Drexler's writing on the future of AI for more than a decade at this point. I love it, but I also think it can be tricky or frustrating.

More than anyone else I know, Eric seems to tap into a deep vision for how the future of technology may work — and having once tuned into this, I find many other perspectives can feel hollow. (This reminds me of how, once I had enough of a feel for how economies work, I found a lot of science fiction felt hollow, if the world presented made too little sense in terms of what was implied for off-screen variables.)

One cornerstone of Eric's perspective on AI, as I see it, is a deep rejection of anthropomorphism. People considering current AI systems mostly have no difficulty understanding it as technology rather than person. But when discussion moves to superintelligence … well, as Eric puts it:

Our expectations rest on biological intuitions. Every intelligence we’ve known arose through evolution, where survival was a precondition for everything else—organisms that failed to compete and preserve themselves left no descendants. Self-preservation wasn’t optional—it was the precondition for [...]

---

Outline:

(02:41) Difficulties with Drexler's writing

(03:38) How to read Drexler

(05:08) What Drexler covers

(05:16) 1) Mapping the technological trajectory

(05:50) 2) Pushing back on anthropomorphism

(06:37) 3) Advocating for strategic judo

(07:24) The missing topics

(08:29) Translation and reinvention

(09:50) Pieces I'd be especially excited to see explored

---

First published:

January 21st, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Ds4cvwdoHjfxhRuZy/how-and-why-to-read-drexler-on-ai

Linkpost URL:
https://strangecities.substack.com/p/how-and-why-to-read-drexler-on-ai

---

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 a link post.

AI risk discussion often seems to assume that the AI we most want to prepare for will emerge in a “normal” world — one that hasn’t really been transformed by earlier AI systems.

I think betting on this assumption could be a big mistake. If it turns out to be wrong, most of our preparation for advanced AI could end up ~worthless, or at least far less effective than it could have been. We might find ourselves wishing that we’d laid the groundwork for leveraging enormous political will, prepared for government inadequacy, figured out how to run large-scale automated research projects, and so on. Moreover, if earlier systems do change the background situation, influencing how that plays out could be one of our best levers for dealing with AI challenges overall, as it could leave us in a much better situation for the “boss-battle” AI (an opportunity we’ll squander if we focus exclusively on the endgame).

So I really want us to invest in improving our views on which AI changes we should expect to see first. Progress here seems at least as important as improving our AI timelines (which get significantly more attention). [...]

---

First published:

January 21st, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/htZ9tvsjrTgx6zNS6/the-first-type-of-transformative-ai

Linkpost URL:
https://www.forethought.org/research/the-first-type-of-transformative-ai#improving-how-earlier-ai-transformations-play-out

---

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.

In 2023, the top 20 donors to GiveWell gave more than the other 31,890 donors combined. These donors gave at least $1 million each with a mean of $5.87 million.

With stats like these, I mostly view the 10% pledge as a social commitment device rather than a sensible rule for how much to donate. One can think of the 10% pledge as requiring people to give up a constant amount of personal utility under logarithmic utility of consumption. But this doesn't make sense; one should obviously give up more utility if beneficiaries gain more per unit you sacrifice. [1][2]

Is there something better that captures the extreme variance in salary these days, eg with junior AI engineers earning >$1M/year? I propose a power law where someone with income Y should donate everything except a consumption budget _C = X·(Y/X)^γ_. Then the donation rate is calculated as _1 - (X/Y)^{(1-γ)}_.

With parameters somewhat arbitrarily set such that the median American household (income $75K) donates 10% and someone with $10M income donates 60%, we get _X approx $39.3k_ and γ ≈ 0.83, meaning that every 1% increase in income allows you a 0.83% increase in consumption. We get the following [...]

---

First published:

January 22nd, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KoBRDWFz5faiWN9NT/a-sliding-scale-for-donation-percentage

---

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.

In 2023, the top 20 donors to GiveWell gave more than the other 31,890 donors combined. These donors gave at least $1 million each with a mean of $5.87 million.

With stats like these, I mostly view the 10% pledge as a social commitment device rather than a sensible rule for how much to donate. One can think of the 10% pledge as requiring people to give up a constant amount of personal utility under logarithmic utility of consumption. But this doesn't make sense; one should obviously give up more utility if beneficiaries gain more per unit you sacrifice. [1][2]

Is there something better that captures the extreme variance in salary these days, eg with junior AI engineers earning >$1M/year? I propose a power law where someone with income Y should donate everything except a consumption budget _C = X·(Y/X)^γ_. Then the donation rate is calculated as _1 - (X/Y)^{(1-γ)}_.

With parameters somewhat arbitrarily set such that the median American household (income $75K) donates 10% and someone with $10M income donates 60%, we get _X approx $39.3k_ and γ ≈ 0.83, meaning that every 1% increase in income allows you a 0.83% increase in consumption. We get the following [...]

---

First published:

January 22nd, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KoBRDWFz5faiWN9NT/a-sliding-scale-for-donation-percentage

---

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.

We've made some minor updates to the EA Global Code of Conduct for 2026. These changes will be effective immediately. The core remains the same: we expect professional, respectful behavior at all EA Global and EAGx events.

Anyone already signed up for an event in 2026 will receive an email letting them know about the change.

What we changed:

We added some further behaviours that we don’t want at our events:

• Not recording people without permission, 
• Not excessively promoting your own services or products, 
• Not misrepresenting your credentials or professional ties. 

We made the consequences more legible (i.e. we might give you a warning, or remove you from the event). We also made some light edits for clarity.

We made these changes for a few reasons:

• Bringing together expectations we were setting elsewhere in our communications.
• Responding to things we’ve observed at conferences or that we think may become more common (e.g. people using AI recording devices).

We’re aiming to keep the code of conduct itself fairly concise, but will include some more detail and examples in the attendee guides (e.g. what ‘excessive’ means).

You can email [email protected] or fill in the Community Health [...]

---

Outline:

(00:35) What we changed:

(01:03) We made these changes for a few reasons:

(01:40) Updated Code of Conduct

---

First published:

January 21st, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bpqJ9qWJmwyMFoYHx/minor-updates-to-ea-global-code-of-conduct

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

The Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED)—an effective-altruism–aligned, global charity, registered in the US as a 501(c)(3) and with sister entities in the UK and Australia – is seeking its first Chief Executive Officer to guide the organization through a pivotal and challenging moment in its history. ALLFED is the only organization in the world dedicated solely to building resilience to global catastrophic food system failure, events that could reduce global caloric output or access by 5% or more. Our work sits at the frontier of global catastrophic risk reduction.

Until now, ALLFED has operated with a flat directorate structure; as we navigate a period of both funding pressure and increasing global opportunities for our expertise, we are creating a CEO role to provide unified leadership for our next chapter. The CEO will work closely with the Board and executive management team to strengthen governance, sharpen strategy, elevate our impact, and build long-term financial sustainability—while representing ALLFED's work to partners, governments, research bodies, and funders around the world.

This role offers the opportunity to make an outsized impact in a field where meaningful leadership can shift global outcomes and will appeal to someone energized by [...]

---

First published:

January 22nd, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/nL3zFRuNrEXgw6d5H/allfed-is-looking-for-a-ceo

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Introduction

This payout report covers the Animal Welfare Fund's grantmaking from July 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 (6 months). It follows the previous April-June 2025 payout report.

We combined Q3 and Q4 payout reports and the annual review into one report because our grantmaking volume was lower in Q3 as a result of EA Funds’ grantmaking pause, which ran from 1 June to 31 July. During the grantmaking pause, AWF focused on improving our grantmaking strategy and plans for the remainder of 2025. Since the pause was lifted in August, AWF started evaluations again as soon as possible and has resumed grantmaking at full volume for the rest of the year.

Overview of Q3 & Q4, 2025 grants

• Total funding approved: $2,482,552
• Total funding paid out: $944,428
• Number of grants approved: 21
• Number of grants paid out: 11
• Acceptance rate (excluding desk rejections): 21/37 = 56.8%
• Acceptance rate (including desk rejections): 21/134 = 15.7%

Highlighted Grants

Crustacean Compassion ($137,000): Advancing Legal Protections for Decapod Crustaceans in the UK

Annually, over 420 million decapod crustaceans—including prawns, lobsters, crab, and langoustine—are caught domestically in the UK, with an additional 5 billion imported. Despite their recognition as sentient in the UK's [...]

---

Outline:

(00:16) Introduction

(01:44) Highlighted Grants

(07:25) Grants Funded with AWF's Partners

(08:11) All Grants We Approved During This Time Period

(08:42) Updated 2025 Grantmaking Overview

(09:34) By species

(09:53) By intervention type

(10:08) Organizational updates

---

First published:

January 21st, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/z8Lr5euvnEsdBcdFg/animal-welfare-fund-payout-recommendations-from-july-to

---

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.

TDRL; The African Organisation for Standardisation is advancing a draft standard (CD-ARS 1241) that would legitimize battery cages across 44 member countries, despite scientific evidence and market trends moving in the opposite direction. The Technical Committee meets February 4, 2026 to discuss the standard.

How to Help

Campaign site: https://stoparsobatterycages.org/

Takes 10 seconds to email ARSO. Takes 2-5 minutes to share in networks. Takes 30 seconds to log your action for campaign tracking.

The Situation

ARSO's draft standard CD-ARS 1241:2025(E) contains a demonstrably false claim in its introduction: "The laying hen cage system has become the most important facility as it guarantees the welfare of birds while laying."

This matters because ARSO standards are recognized across 44 African countries with a combined poultry sector affecting hundreds of millions of laying hens. Once harmonized, these standards create regulatory precedent that's difficult to reverse.

Key parameters of concern:

• Space allocation: 450 cm² per hen (for context, an A4 sheet is 623.7 cm²)
• No enrichment requirements (no perches, nests, litter, or dust baths)
• Direct contradiction with WOAH and scientific consensus on hen welfare needs
• Characterization of battery cages as "essential" despite viable alternatives

What Would Be Valuable

1. Direct action before [...]

---

First published:

January 21st, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LK37zsTumdW8miyAn/high-leverage-campaign-to-prevent-battery-cage

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

This report is the fourth in a sequence presenting the results of Wave 2 of the Pulse project by Rethink Priorities (RP). Pulse is a large-scale survey of US adults designed to track and improve understanding of public attitudes toward effective giving and different impactful cause areas over time. Wave 2 of Pulse was fielded between February and April of 2025 with approximately 5600 respondents.[1] Results from our first wave of Pulse, fielded between July and September of 2024, can be found here, with the forum sequence version here.

This part of the Wave 2 sequence focuses on a collaboration with FarmKind; an organization that promotes effective giving in the farmed animal welfare space.[2] This collaboration involved developing and testing the effects of messages related to donations, and the effects of including information about not needing to change one's diet to help animals. Although the timing of this post coincides with a recent FarmKind campaign (initially ‘Forget Veganuary’ and subsequently ‘Can’t give up meat’),[3] the message testing discussed here was not conducted in preparation for that campaign, and the precise messages tested were less provocative. Nevertheless, the findings may help inform discussion around the campaign, as well as broader [...]

---

Outline:

(01:34) Findings at a glance

(06:55) Introduction

(08:14) Experimental design

(08:18) Outcome variables

(10:47) Experimental conditions

(14:08) Inclusion subgroups

(15:33) Findings

(15:36) How the Donation vs. Diet distancing messages were perceived

(17:50) How messages affected the perceived impact of donating and diet change

(20:40) Diet change is harder than donating, and the messages do not affect perceptions of either one

(23:05) How messages affected interest in donating or diet change

(26:11) Did messages affect a donation-related behavior?

(29:14) Reflections from FarmKind on the findings

---

First published:

January 21st, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ydKwu3rLzwaMrC7qc/should-farmed-animal-donation-appeals-de-emphasize-diet

---

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.