EA Forum Podcast (Curated & popular)

Audio note: this post contains a lot of mathematical notation. We narrate the simpler formulas and flag the complex ones, so you may want the original text to hand.

Do AI models scale as well with more tokens as humans do with more time?

That is, does an AI get the same benefit from 10x the number of available tokens as a human does from 10x the amount of time to do the task? Or might the AI require a larger scale-up of tokens (such as 20x or 100x) to match the performance improvement when scaling up the time available to a human by 10x?

People often think of giving AIs more tokens to complete a task as akin to giving a human worker more time — especially when those tokens are used to extend the AI's sequential chain of thought or tool use. It's a useful analogy, but it isn’t clear whether the AI systems are as efficient as the humans are at turning these extra resources into superior performance.

We often lean on this analogy when trying to understand AI's current capabilities and how they might change. For example, we might think of scaling up [...]

---

First published:

October 9th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/g6sdhN39so8rWBuYk/ai-scaling-vs-human-scaling

---

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.

I have recently decided to leave the Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS) to pursue independent research on the possible implications of UAP and quiet expansionist hypotheses for reducing suffering.

I have some history of writing about these topics (e.g. this essay collection), so this decision amounts to stepping more fully in that direction rather than keeping it perpetually in the background.

I co-founded CRS with Tobias Baumann in 2020, and I greatly appreciate all the support I have received from donors and colleagues while working there. Below, I will briefly explain why I have decided to make this shift.

Why do I prioritize these topics?

Two of the main reasons I prioritize these topics are theory and evidence. When it comes to theory, it seems that people tend to dismiss the possibility of quiet alien expansion based on very strong theoretical assumptions, but I don’t think those assumptions are nearly as solid as people generally assume. In fact, most of the essays I’ve written about this topic (e.g. From AI to distant probes, Silent cosmic rulers, and The cooperative silence hypothesis) argue against the typical theoretical assumptions that supposedly rule out quiet expansion or nearby alien technology. (See also [...]

---

Outline:

(00:48) Why do I prioritize these topics?

(02:32) Why will I do this work outside CRS?

(03:44) What this means for CRS

The original text contained 5 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

October 9th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7CBwcTn7Cjoe2CEza/i-m-leaving-the-center-for-reducing-suffering-to-pursue

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Our ecosystem is bottlenecked by people who have deep context and relevant skills.

This means that the time of people with context and relevant skills is very valuable: usually more valuable than their salary.

When taking this effect into account, it turns out that:

1. The net cost to the ecosystem of an organisation made up of high-context and relevant-skill people is much larger than the financial costs of that organisation.
2. The net cost to the ecosystem of an organisation which trains many staff might be much lower than the financial costs of that organisation.
3. The return curves of these organisations can get pretty whacky, in a way which will sometimes affect strategic decisions.
4. Giving your staff a good experience in the ecosystem and enabling them to increase their context / skills is important: it's likely a meaningful fraction of your organisation's impact.

Here are some hypothetical figures to illustrate what these effects might look like.

If you’d like, you can play around with these figures here.

The rest of the post is focused on better explaining the above and belabouring implications. I expect that if the above is intuitive to you and you’ve already absorbed the strategic implications [...]

---

Outline:

(01:59) What a hire costs

(03:10) A worked example

(04:27) Why the return curves get whacky

(05:57) Put your own numbers in

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

---

First published:

October 9th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/pnZcWtLRLLs3Yq6hd/the-strategic-implications-of-staff-opportunity-costs

---

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: I've been an academic, climate activist and research lead in Extinction Rebellion UK's Data Analysis and Insights Circle. I co-authored most of the studies below. I am writing in a personal capacity, drawing on extensive research into climate activism.

Summary

• People often decide whether a protest worked from a next-day poll or a hostile headline. I believe this is the wrong evidence.
• I see four common mistakes: polling the public when the targets are elites, measuring too soon, trusting what people say over what they do, and generalising from one audience to another.
• I end with five suggestions for funders and evaluators. Most apply to any movement that protests, including animal advocacy.

Most people in the UK accept that climate change is real, and most are worried about it. The majority (66%) even support nonviolent direct action to protect the UK's nature (Guardian). Yet very few take part in collective action. In 2023, five years after it was founded, only about 0.25% of the UK population (roughly 170,000 people) had joined Extinction Rebellion, a major climate activism group.

That gap between sympathy and participation is where a lot of arguments about whether protest "works" go wrong. [...]

---

Outline:

(02:18) What the evidence can and can't tell us

(04:15) Measure 1: polling the wrong audience

(06:30) Measure 2: measuring at the wrong time

(08:16) Measure 3: trusting the wrong kind of data

(10:40) Measure 4: generalising from the wrong people

(13:34) What this means for funders and evaluators

(14:54) References

---

First published:

October 5th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/P4wReSgW6MSKpQGvz/we-judge-activism-by-the-wrong-measures-four-ways-we

---

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: I wrote this up hoping people can poke holes in it because I am quite worried.

 

Here's what we've heard so far:

• Local media is reporting that an employee of a BSL-3 lab in Irkutsk, Russia, died of pneumonic plague on Oct 1st.
• The initial quarantine covered 200 people who were in contact with the employee before she died.
• The FSB (Russian FBI) was seen assisting in the quarantine, which means it was not voluntary.
• Soviet-era whistleblowers like Ken Alibek claim Irkutsk was a major bioweapon development facility. 
   

As of Oct 4th:

• The quarantine has expanded to 5 hospitals in the area.
• The Russian government has switched to denial/coverup. Local news sources have deleted mentions of "pneumonic plague." 

• Local universities and schools have canceled some classes and extended mask mandates.
• On the lab's website, they mention gain-of-function research for making bacteria more virulent.  
• The White House is monitoring the suspected outbreak.

10/5 update:

• Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan are now doing quarantine health checks at the Russian border to contain the spread of pneumonic plague.
• Russian equivalent of HHS is now denying there was any accident at the lab at all.
• [...]

---

Outline:

(00:18) Here's what we've heard so far:

(00:51) As of Oct 4th:

(02:06) 10/5 update:

(02:29) Why this might be a big deal

(03:53) Why this might not be a big deal

---

First published:

October 5th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jukqfkkeez3cCqxkC/how-much-should-we-worry-about-the-pneumonic-plague-lableak

---

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.

Summary

Over the course of a year, the Fieldshaper program develops you into a field-leading grantmaker. You’ll steward $1,000,000 in grant capital, receive a $125,000 annual stipend, and deploy that capital within a sub-field of one of three key areas (farmed animals, global health, or philanthropic infrastructure); building the track record to become a grantmaker who can shape a field.

Role Details

• Title: Grantmaker-In-Residence (Leader of the X fund or Grantmaker in Y area also possible options)
• Location: Hybrid: Remote with four mandatory in-person weeks (London; New York; San Francisco; a cause-track conference (London, Oxford or Mexico depending on cause area).
• Compensation: A living stipend of ~$125,000 for the year
• Duration: 12 months, full-time, February 2027 to January 2028
• Focus areas: Farmed animal welfare, Philanthropic infrastructure, Global health, Global aid policy
• Goal: To create the next generation of fieldshapers and active grantmakers
• How to Apply: Visit elevatephilanthropy.com/fieldshaperprogram (Deadline: October 30)

Program

The Elevate Philanthropy fieldshaper program is a one-year training program that turns generalist, high-agency professionals into active grantmakers and general managers of problems. After 6 weeks of intensive training, each resident will deploy $1,000,000 of grant capital across the rest of the year, similar to a program [...]

---

Outline:

(00:12) Summary

(00:40) Role Details

(01:51) Program

(06:51) What we are looking for

(09:29) Recruitment Process

---

First published:

October 1st, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ZHkMrsvfe2HMxoKG9/elevate-philanthropy-the-fieldshaper-program

---

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.

Previously: GiveWell raised less than its 10th percentile forecast in 2023 · GiveWell fundraising up 17% in 2024

GiveWell has published its 2025 metrics, together with a metrics report and a public spreadsheet. As in previous years, I focus on how much was raised and who gave it. This year I also look at how concentrated GiveWell's donor base is.

Truth be told I kinda phoned it in on this one, the full Claude version with better charts is here

Summary

• Returning donors gave 443.6 million dollars (up 77%). New donors gave 37.1 million dollars (up 112%), which is still below their 2020 to 2022 levels.
• 39 donors giving 1 million dollars or more contributed 359.7 million dollars. That is 75% of identified donations through GiveWell and 90% of the year's increase. Every smaller size band also grew, by 13–27%.
• The donor base is far more concentrated than an 80/20 rule. The top 20% of donors gave about 97% of the money, and about 0.26% of donors (roughly 90) gave 80%. Asking the question again within the top group (the top 20% of the top 20%, and so on) gives 94%, 93% and 92%, rather than 80% each [...]

---

Outline:

(00:47) Summary

(01:53) Returning donors drove the increase

(03:20) The increase was driven overwhelmingly by $1M+ donations

(05:22) Is GiveWell's funding 80/20? No: it is far more concentrated

(07:01) Pareto within Pareto

(09:23) Methodology and caveats

(11:33) Sources

---

First published:

October 2nd, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Xv7bHTipWDhRGrnHy/givewell-fundraising-up-49-in-2025-driven-overwhelmingly-by

---

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.

Today, I’m launching the Wildlife Technology Fund at Renaissance Philanthropy.

The purpose of the fund is to scope, design, and manage coordinated research programs (CRPs), focused on making wild animal welfare interventions a reality. To do this, we’re prioritizing work that benefits both people and animals, often by working to solve some kind of wildlife conflict. While I believe we should work to solve all kinds of wild animal welfare issues, things that significantly benefit people and resolve conflicts will be more tractable to implement sooner.

We’re currently hiring for program managers to scope and manage CRPs. If you’re looking for varied work and high autonomy, this might be for you. Please share widely!

I can’t thank Wild Animal Initiative enough for doing the foundational work that makes this Fund possible. WAI is where these ideas were borne and refined, and the team there is responsible for the fundamental insights that make identifying positive interventions possible.

Over the next few months, I’ll share explanations of some of the program areas we’re exploring, and why they stand to help (at least) millions of people and billions of wild animals. For now, some [...]

---

Outline:

(01:28) What is a coordinated research program?

(03:13) How will the Fund work?

(05:06) What kinds of things will you focus on?

(07:33) Why Renaissance Philanthropy?

(07:54) How can people support the Wildlife Technology Fund?

---

First published:

October 5th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bMph29wcdxpvDMrGF/wildlife-technology-fund-renaissance-philanthropy

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

A conflict of interest to flag: I'm the founder of Settled, a relationship and matchmaking company with free and paid tiers. That may create bias in what I notice and what I recommend, so weigh these recommendations accordingly. I’d love for some of you to sign up to Settled, but my aim here is to share something useful whether or not you ever do.

What this post is and isn’t 

• We’re writing this because we hope it provide helpful insights - people have also asked, so here it is!
• This post is based on:
  • Hundreds of hours of interviews and coaching  with 350+ singles
  • Data from Settled: nearly 2K completed questionnaires & hundreds of feedback forms from dates we set up
  • An ongoing literature review (with help from Claude) - 70+ papers reviewed
• Our insights are observational, there's no control group and we collected all data for the purpose of setting up good dates, not research or analysis. We're including it because operational data from inside a matchmaking service is rare, not because it's complete or correct. 

Some observations and learnings from building Settled 

1. Dating apps are problematic; you should probably still use them

There [...]

---

Outline:

(00:32) What this post is and isn't

(01:22) Some observations and learnings from building Settled

(01:27) 1. Dating apps are problematic; you should probably still use them

(04:11) 2. Just ask questions and be on time.

(05:21) 3. We're bad at knowing how the first date went.

(08:29) 4. Physical attraction is just one ingredient amongst many

(10:53) 5. Dating doesn't have to suck.

(12:38) If this resonates with you, join us

---

First published:

October 5th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ecwyaawXhDjCmzHmb/what-i-learned-from-going-on-230-dates-with-eas-1

---

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.

Applications open: Strategic Animal Funding Circle autumn 2026 round

The Strategic Animal Funding Circle, now run by Senterra Funders, is accepting applications for its autumn 2026 funding round.

We’re seeking promising, cost-effective opportunities to reduce farmed and wild animal suffering, with a particular focus on neglected areas and funding gaps.

Application deadline: 1 November 2026, 11:59 pm PST.

Read the full request for proposals | Apply here

What we’re looking for

Our aim is to complement existing grantmaking by supporting valuable work that might otherwise struggle to attract funding. We’re especially interested in:

• Smaller or newer organisations with promising approaches and room to grow.
• Neglected species, geographies or interventions.
• Early-stage or unusual approaches with a strong theory of change.
• Opportunities outside larger grantmakers’ scope, including smaller funding requests (under 200 thousand dollars), and organisations with annual budgets below US$500,000.

These funding and budget figures describe preferences, rather than strict eligibility limits. Please consult the full RFP for the eligibility criteria, areas of interest and exclusions.

We are working with Coefficient Giving and the EA Animal Welfare Fund to help identify gaps where the circle could add value.

What makes a strong application?

We want to understand:

• How [...]

---

Outline:

(00:13) Applications open: Strategic Animal Funding Circle autumn 2026 round

(00:50) What we're looking for

(01:51) What makes a strong application?

(02:30) How the process works

(03:12) Apply or share

---

First published:

October 8th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fyee4fFWzuM4XxD4x/strategic-animal-funding-circle-applications-open-for-autumn

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.