EA Forum Podcast (All audio)

My decision to take the Giving What We Can (now the 10%) Pledge in September 2020 was based on the responsibility I felt with my great power, improving my own quality of life and the logic of it all. However, these thoughts were all quite unconscious back then and my decision to take the pledge was immediate as soon as I learned about it.

To celebrate "Why I donate week" I decided to think through my reasoning, which was implicit back then, in more detail:

With great power comes great responsibility 

My commitment to donate 10% of my income for life is fundamentally rooted in a strong belief: with great power comes great responsibility. The power I hold is the freedom to choose what I do with a decent portion of my income, a power that countless individuals across the globe simply do not possess as they struggle daily to meet their basic needs. My personal responsibility is to use this power to support those who have not been afforded the same chance in life.

This stems directly from a place of undeniable privilege. Growing up in the United Kingdom, I was raised in a stable family environment where [...]

---

Outline:

(00:39) With great power comes great responsibility

(01:58) Giving away my money increased my quality of life

(03:32) The logic of it all

---

First published:

December 8th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3zsWoNm6DGGr9kSuD/why-i-donate-and-pledge-responsibility-life-quality-and

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

This is a link post.

Let's imagine a story.

• I am a mid- to upper-ranking member of OpenAI or Anthropic. 
• I offload some of my shares and wish to give some money away. 
• If I want to give to a specific charity or Coefficient, fair enough. 
• If I am so wealthy or determined that I can set up my own foundation, also fair enough. 
• What do I do if I wish to give away money effectively, but don't agree with Coefficient's processes, and haven't done enough research to have chosen a specific charity? 

Is EA prepared to deal with these people?

Notably, to the extent that such people are predictable, I feel like we should have solutions before they turn up, not after they turn up.

What might some of these solutions look like, and which of them currently exist?

Things the Currently exist

Coefficient Giving

It's good to have a large, trusted philanthropy that runs according to predictable processes. If people like those processes, they can just give to that one.

Manifund

It's good to have a system of re-granting and such that wealthy individuals can re-grant to people they trust to do the [...]

---

Outline:

(01:02) Things the Currently exist

(01:06) Coefficient Giving

(01:19) Manifund

(01:31) The S-Process

(01:52) Things that don't exist fully

(01:56) A repository or research (~EA forum)

(02:12) A philanthropic search/chatbot

(02:44) A charity ranker

(03:48) EA community notes

(04:17) A way to navigate the ecosystem

(05:10) A new approach

(06:49) Imagine that 10 new EA-adjacent 100 millionaires popped up overnight. What are we missing?

---

First published:

December 9th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/w3HtGrEp8RKLQGDtG/is-ea-prepared-for-an-influx-of-new-medium-sized-donors

Linkpost URL:
https://nathanpmyoung.substack.com/p/is-ea-prepared-for-an-influx-of-new

---

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.

Keep this post on ice and uncork it when the bubble pops. It may mean nothing to you now; I hope it means something when the time comes.

This post is written with an anguished heart, from love, which is the only good reason to do anything.

Blue Bay by Jack Mancino

I hope that the AI bubble popping is like the FTX collapse 2.0 for effective altruism. Not because it will make funding dry up — it won't. And not because it will have any relation to moral scandal — it won't. But it will be a financial wreck — orders of magnitude larger than the FTX collapse — that could lead to soul-searching for many people in effective altruism, if they choose to respond that way. (It may also have indirect reputational damage for EA by diminishing the credibility of the imminent AGI narrative — too early to tell.)

In the wake of the FTX collapse, one of the positive signs was the eagerness of people to do soul-searching. It was difficult, and it's still difficult, how to make sense of EA's role in FTX. Did powerful people in the EA movement somehow contribute to the scam? [...]

---

First published:

December 5th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/F2m2AWAk8PuWnCak8/how-i-hope-the-ea-community-will-respond-to-the-ai-bubble

---

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.

Cross-posted from my substack.

Epistemic status: pretty confident, but willing to believe I’ve missed something somehow, hoping somebody smart will point it out if so.

Level: pretty introductory, though assumes a bit of economics knowledge - if you’ve thought carefully or extensively about this particular topic I don’t expect you to find much of it novel.

Introduction

In a world with advanced Artificial General Intelligence, how do non-capital owners survive if their labour is outcompeted by AI?

Recently, I found myself responding to one of the many Matts of economist/policy Twitter about the relevance of comparative advantage arguments for AI.

Also recently, the excellent Seb Krier of DeepMind posted about a tool to illustrate comparative advantage he had built:[1]

The tool does what it says on the tin - it shows how comparative advantage works, and how in an environment with both AI and human labourers, even if the AIs were substantially better than humans at everything, comparative advantage would still ensure there were things the humans should do to jointly maximise economic output.

He does, in a response under the post, acknowledge that this is not sufficient to ensure human flourishing and we must rely on other mechanisms [...]

---

Outline:

(00:42) Introduction

(03:46) Comparative advantage alone doesn't mean you get to eat

(05:38) How we can ensure everyone eats anyway

---

First published:

December 3rd, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FLWRjCPQsiTiGfL36/on-comparative-advantage-and-agi

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

is better at everything you do and requires less energy. I still think this is not quite grokking (in the original Heinlein meaning) it? Like I think the main unintuitive leap is that it's only the AI's opportunity cost that really matters." Matt Darling replies: "It doesn't matter what the AI can do better than me. That's not particularly interesting or important! It matters what the optimal use of the AI is. The more "G" the AGI is the stronger the optimal use is." Charles replies: "Horses have a comparative advantage vs humans with cars, and nonetheless the economy supports fewer horses than it once did."" style="max-width: 100%;" />

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

Four years ago, I decided to donate at least 10% of my income going forward. Here are four reasons why.

Any single reason below would probably be enough on its own. Together, they make this one of the clearest positive and rewarding decisions I've ever made.

1. I think it's the right thing to do

I follow Peter Singer's arguments. From any consistent moral framework I can support, I end up in the same place: given the coincidence of being born in a rich country, I should be helping others significantly. I'd have to do serious logical and moral gymnastics to avoid this conclusion, and I'm not interested in that kind of self-deception.

2. I actually care

Straightforward: when I read about someone's specific situation, their health, their opportunities, their constraints, I naturally want to help. It takes active effort not to care.

There's a moving post on the EA Forum that captures this: "Somehow, a single paragraph of explanation can transform someone from nameless and faceless to someone that I deeply care about. When I hear this person's story, I feel willing to give up a nice vacation or two to help them."

I don't need to convince [...]

---

Outline:

(00:26) 1. I think it's the right thing to do

(00:52) 2. I actually care

(01:34) 3. It grounds my everyday work

(02:36) 4. I thought it was radical (and now I don't)

---

First published:

December 8th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NGwLhXueysyxiA4tP/why-i-donate

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

I’ve been meaning to write this post for a while, but EA Connect gave me the final motivational push :)

Many EAs I talk to seem to treat online vs. offline conferences like this:

Online:

• “I will register and listen in for the most interesting talks, but otherwise won’t spend much time at the conference.”
• “I will let people book a call with me, but I won’t actively source 1-1s.”

Offline:

• “I will book as many 1-1s as I can reasonably take (or more) to get the most out of the conference.”

I think this is a mistake. One should take the same approach to virtual conferences as to in-person ones, and slightly tweak their current approach (insofar as it's similar to the above) to make in-person conferences more serendipitous.

Online conferences that use Swapcard have several advantages over in-person ones:

• You can talk to people who live far away and whom you’d otherwise be unlikely to connect with.
• You can give people your online calendar instead of putting up with Swapcard's scheduling tool, making meetings lower friction.[1]
• Rescheduling is easier.
• You can take a larger number of meetings: shorter default durations feel more natural, and [...]

---

First published:

December 7th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bYBGqkpLiK6JgLKrQ/online-eags-are-underrated-fbb-11

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

I've written a song about career planning - maybe some of you can relate to it ;}

You can listen (and get a fortune) here: https://www.everyonelikestobea.fish/

---

First published:

December 5th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hAd7PpCmQrBdc4Zmr/a-song-about-career-planning

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

This is a link post.

This is a linkpost for The Conscious Nematode: Exploring Hallmarks of Minimal Phenomenal Consciousness in Caenorhabditis Elegans by Diego Becerra, Andrea Calixto, and Patricio Orio, which was originally published on the International Journal of Psychological Research in October 2023. Below are the abstract, summary of the evidence for consciousness in Caenorhabditis (C.) elegans, and my quick thoughts.

Abstract

While subcellular components of cognition and affectivity that involve the interaction between experience, environment, and physiology -such as learning, trauma, or emotion- are being identified, the physical mechanisms of phenomenal consciousness remain more elusive. We are interested in exploring whether ancient, simpler organisms such as nematodes have minimal consciousness. Is there something that feels like to be a worm? Or are worms blind machines? ‘Simpler’ models allow us to simultaneously extract data from multiple levels such as slow and fast neural dynamics, structural connectivity, molecular dynamics, behavior, decision making, etc., and thus, to test predictions of the current frameworks in dispute. In the present critical review, we summarize the current models of consciousness in order to reassess in light of the new evidence whether Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode with a nervous system composed of 302 neurons, has [...]

---

Outline:

(00:42) Abstract

(01:49) Summary of the evidence for consciousness in Caenorhabditis elegans

(02:19) My quick thoughts

---

First published:

December 5th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Xhhm7GYA8xy6oLoY8/the-conscious-nematode-exploring-hallmarks-of-minimal

Linkpost URL:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10723751/

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Ronny Chieng strikes again, this time featuring Peter Wildeford and the risks from AI on the Daily Show:

---

First published:

December 5th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/epuSKFdGD82cxZAGd/peter-wildeford-talks-about-risks-from-ai-on-the-daily-show

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Introduction:

The LEAP panel is a project run by the Forecasting Research institute to attempt to determine the views of a range of AI experts on how future AI progress will go. They recently released a white paper explaining the format of the panel, as well as showing a range of forecasting outcomes.

One of the questions in the survey was phrased in a manner that I think was confusing, and was subsequently misrepresented in the text of the report. After a back-and-forth, the team working on the report has corrected the wording in the paper.

I have written up this article because I think it is an interesting example of how even very subtle word choices can end up undermining, and potentially invalidating, a survey question. At the end, I provide a suggested improvement in the wording.

I'll note that this discussion is confined to one question only, out of the 18 asked in the report. In a later section, I will explain why I think it's still a matter of importance.

I want to thank Connacher Murphy and Ezra Karger from FRI for being willing to hear this criticism out and make adjustments [...]

---

First published:

December 4th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/eHh7Yo9r3zyWquahA/explaining-a-subtle-but-important-error-in-the-leap-survey

---

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.