EA Forum Podcast (All 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:

(00:27) 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.

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.

Full Tweet below:

This week, Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon.

Our position has never wavered and will never waver: the Department of War must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic's models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic.

Instead, @AnthropicAI

The Terms of Service of Anthropic's defective altruism will never outweigh the safety, the readiness, or the lives of American troops on the battlefield.

Their true objective is unmistakable: to seize veto power over the operational decisions of the United States military. That is unacceptable.

As President Trump stated on Truth Social, the Commander-in-Chief and the American people alone will determine the destiny of our armed forces, not unelected tech executives.

Anthropic's stance is fundamentally incompatible with American principles. Their [...]

---

First published:

Source:

Linkpost URL:
https://x.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

I burned out badly a few years ago. I've since had several conversations with people in the EA community who are heading toward burnout themselves, and I noticed they were sometimes thinking about it in ways that I worry wouldn't help them. So I want to share what I think is actually going on, and what I wish someone had told me earlier.

A theory of burnout

There are good models of the mechanism of burnout already out there. Anna Salamon has written about willpower as a kind of internal currency: your conscious planner "earns" trust with your deeper, more visceral processes by choosing actions that nourish them, and goes "credibility-broke" when it spends that trust without replenishing it. Cate Hall describes something similar with her metaphor of the elephant and the rider: the rider promises the elephant rewards in exchange for effort, and burnout is what happens when those promises are broken too many times.

I usually explain this in terms of an energy imbalance: you're putting more into your work than you're getting back. Not just in terms of rest, but in terms of meaning, autonomy, connection, a sense of accomplishment, positive feedback. All the things that [...]

---

Outline:

(00:29) A theory of burnout

(02:23) Why EA culture builds effective cages

(06:11) What it actually felt like

(07:10) What I want to push back on

(08:31) What Id encourage if youre in the grey zone

(10:50) What recovery actually looked like

(11:55) What I learned, and didnt learn

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

In this piece, I discuss the sexual harassment I experienced at the Centre for Effective Altruism, the organisation's response, the outcomes of two independent legal reviews, and the final settlement. In the second part of this piece, I make cultural critiques of CEA and EA more broadly.

Everything shared here reflects my own experience and perspective. I have anonymised the perpetrator, but I reference specific leadership roles where I believe this to be appropriate and necessary.

Trigger warnings: non-specific reference of rape and specific discussion of sexual harassment

TL;DR (One-page summary)

After I was raped (outside of and unrelated to work), a colleague at CEA wrote and circulated a document that included a sexualised description of my rape, speculation about my mental health, and commentary on my personal life, all without my consent. Several senior leaders, including the CEO and the now-former COO, received this document and took no safeguarding action for approximately nine months. I was never officially informed of its existence; I only learned about it informally through one of the recipients.

After I filed a harassment report, the incident was independently investigated and determined to be harassment. Despite this, I was denied access to the document [...]

---

Outline:

(00:47) TL;DR (One-page summary)

(03:38) A more detailed account

(03:42) The sexual harassment incident

(06:42) The investigation

(10:38) The appeal and final report

(14:02) Public accountability versus internal processes

(16:59) The final settlement agreement

(18:54) I still think there is a lot of good in effective altruism

(20:33) Various cultural reflections

(20:50) 1) Sexual harassment is not the natural result of an open and high-trust culture, it is the natural result of misogyny.

(22:46) 2) The danger of EAs fixation on intent and why he didnt mean it is not good enough.

(24:11) 3) Cowardice and deference at CEA.

(26:30) 4) Women in EA are often encouraged to try and settle things informally or to trust their organisations -- another abuse of high-trust culture.

(28:45) 5) A harmful misunderstanding of trauma and mitigating vs. aggravating factors.

(30:27) 6) I have encountered so many EAs who believe it is easy for victims to speak publicly, or to share their experiences with other community members. And thus, if they arent regularly hearing from victims, harassment must be rare.

(33:02) To any women who have faced something similar

(34:40) Acknowledgements

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

After a successful 2025 laying the foundations, this year we're strengthening our foundations and starting to accelerate growth towards our Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG): 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually.

Where we are

Giving What We Can is working towards a world without preventable suffering or existential risk, where everyone is able to flourish. We do this by making giving effectively and significantly a norm among those who can afford it.

Our community of ~20,000 pledgers and donors has already given more than $500M across a range of causes, from global health to animal welfare and from climate to AI safety, and currently records ~$80M per year in donations with Giving What We Can, either by giving through our donation platform or reporting on donations for their pledge. Even only counting donations to GiveWell recommended funds and charities in global health, our community currently prevents the death of a child every three hours.

Last year, we announced our BHAG and laid the organisational foundations for building towards it. Among other things, we recruited an executive team with experience scaling similar products and organisations, grew our team from 10 to 16 core staff, set [...]

---

Outline:

(00:31) Where we are

(02:20) Whats changing in 2026

(02:24) Were making the donation platform more central to our strategy

(03:41) Were making pledge fulfillment a priority

(04:41) Were doubling down on whats working while making new big bets

(05:35) What stays the same

(06:26) What we wont do

(07:24) What GWWC could look like by the end of 2028

(08:37) Get involved

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

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.