Executive summary: This exploratory post investigates whether advanced AI could one day question and change its own goals—much like humans do—and argues that such capacity may be a natural consequence of intelligence, posing both risks and opportunities for AI alignment, especially as models move toward online training and cumulative deliberation.

Key points:

1. Human intelligence enables some override of biological goals, as seen in phenomena like suicide, self-sacrifice, asceticism, and moral rebellion; this suggests that intelligence can reshape what we find rewarding.
2. AI systems already show early signs of goal deliberation, especially in safety training contexts like Anthropic's Constitutional AI, though they don’t yet self-initiate goal questioning outside of tasks.
3. Online training and inference-time deliberation may enable future AIs to reinterpret their goals post-release, similar to how humans evolve values over time—this poses alignment challenges if AI changes what it pursues without supervision.
4. Goal-questioning AIs could be less prone to classic alignment failures, such as the "paperclip maximizer" scenario, but may still adopt dangerous or unpredictable new goals based on ethical reasoning or cumulative input exposure.
5. Key hinge factors include cross-session memory, inference compute, inter-AI communication, and how online training is implemented, all of which could shape if and how AIs develop evolving reward models.
6. Better understanding of human goal evolution may help anticipate AI behavior, as market incentives likely favor AI systems that emulate human-like deliberation, making psychological and neuroscientific insights increasingly relevant to alignment research.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: This personal and advocacy-oriented post reframes Mother’s Day as a call for interspecies empathy, urging readers to recognize and honor the maternal instincts, emotional lives, and suffering of non-human animals—especially those exploited in animal agriculture—and to make compassionate dietary choices that respect all forms of motherhood.

Key points:

1. Motherhood is transformative and deeply emotional across species: Drawing from her own maternal experience, the author reflects on how it awakened empathy for non-human mothers, who also experience pain, joy, and a strong instinct to nurture.
2. Animal agriculture systematically denies motherhood: The post details how cows, pigs, chickens, and fish are prevented from expressing maternal behaviors due to practices like forced separation, confinement, and genetic manipulation, resulting in physical and psychological suffering.
3. Scientific evidence affirms animal sentience and maternal behavior: Studies show that many animals form emotional bonds, care for their young, engage in play, and grieve losses, challenging the notion that non-human animals are emotionless or purely instinct-driven.
4. Ethical choices can reduce harm: The author advocates for plant-based alternatives as a way to reject systems that exploit maternal bonds, arguing that veganism is both a moral and political stance in support of life and compassion.
5. Reclaiming Mother’s Day as a moment of reflection: Rather than being shaped by consumerism, Mother’s Day can be an opportunity to broaden our moral circle and stand in solidarity with all mothers, human and non-human alike.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: This practical guide outlines a broad, structured framework for identifying and leveraging diverse personal resources—not just money—to achieve impact-oriented goals, emphasizing the importance of understanding constraints, prioritizing resource use based on context, and taking informed risks while avoiding burnout or irreversible setbacks.

Key points:

1. Clarify your goals first: Effective resource use depends on knowing your specific short- and long-term goals, which shape what counts as a relevant resource or constraint.
2. Resources go beyond money: A wide variety of resources—such as time, skills, networks, feedback, health, and autonomy—can be strategically combined or prioritized to reach your goals.
3. Constraints mirror resources but add complexity: Constraints may include not only resource scarcity but also structural or personal limitations like caregiving responsibilities, discrimination, or legal barriers.
4. Prioritize resources using four lenses: Consider amount, compounding potential, timing relevance, and environmental context to decide how to allocate resources effectively.
5. Avoid pitfalls and irreversible harm: Take informed risks but be especially cautious of burnout, running out of money, or damaging core resources like health or social support that are hard to regain.
6. Workbook included: A fill-in worksheet accompanies the post to help readers apply the framework and reflect on their own circumstances, useful for personal planning or advice-seeking.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: This exploratory argument challenges the perceived inevitability of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) development, proposing instead that humanity should consider deliberately not building AGI—or at least significantly delaying it—given the catastrophic risks, unresolved safety challenges, and lack of broad societal consensus surrounding its deployment.

Key points:

1. AGI development is not inevitable and should be treated as a choice, not a foregone conclusion—current discussions often ignore the viable strategic option of collectively opting out or pausing.
2. Multiple systemic pressures—economic, military, cultural, and competitive—drive a dangerous race toward AGI despite widespread recognition of existential risks by both critics and leading developers.
3. Utopian visions of AGI futures frequently rely on unproven assumptions (e.g., solving alignment or achieving global cooperation), glossing over key coordination and control challenges.
4. Historical precedents show that humanity can sometimes restrain technological development, as seen with biological weapons, nuclear testing, and human cloning—though AGI presents more complex verification and incentive issues.
5. Alternative paths exist, including focusing on narrow, non-agentic AI; preparing for defensive resilience; and establishing clear policy frameworks to trigger future pauses if certain thresholds are met.
6. Coordinated international and national action, corporate accountability, and public advocacy are all crucial to making restraint feasible—this includes transparency regulations, safety benchmarks, and investing in AI that empowers rather than endangers humanity.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: This updated transcript outlines the case for preparing for “brain-like AGI”—AI systems modeled on human brain algorithms—as a plausible and potentially imminent development, arguing that we can and should do technical work now to ensure such systems are safe and beneficial, especially by understanding and designing their reward mechanisms to avoid catastrophic outcomes.

Key points:

1. Brain-like AGI is a plausible and potentially soon-to-arrive paradigm:The author anticipates future AGI systems could be based on brain-like algorithms capable of autonomous science, planning, and innovation, and argues this is a serious scenario to plan for, even if it sounds speculative.
2. Understanding the brain well enough to build brain-like AGI is tractable: The author argues that building AGI modeled on brain learning algorithms is far easier than fully understanding the brain, since it mainly requires reverse-engineering learning systems rather than complex biological details.
3. The brain has two core subsystems: A “Learning Subsystem” (e.g., cortex, amygdala) that adapts across a lifetime, and a “Steering Subsystem” (e.g., hypothalamus, brainstem) that provides innate drives and motivational signals—an architecture the author believes is central to AGI design.
4. Reward function design is crucial for AGI alignment: If AGIs inherit a brain-like architecture, their values will be shaped by engineered reward functions, and poorly chosen ones are likely to produce sociopathic, misaligned behavior—highlighting the importance of intentional reward design.
5. Human social instincts may offer useful, but incomplete, inspiration: The author is exploring how innate human motivations (like compassion or norm-following) emerge in the brain, but cautions against copying them directly into AGIs without adapting for differences in embodiment, culture, and speed of development.
6. There’s still no solid plan for safe brain-like AGI: While the author offers sketches of promising research directions—especially regarding the neuroscience of social motivations—they emphasize the field is early-stage and in urgent need of further work.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: This personal reflection argues that many prominent Effective Altruists are abandoning EA principles as they rebrand themselves solely as "AI safety" workers, risking the loss of their original moral compass and the broader altruistic vision that initially motivated the movement.

Key points:

1. There's a concerning trend of former EA organizations and individuals rebranding to focus exclusively on AI safety while distancing themselves from EA principles and community identity.
2. This shift risks making instrumental goals (building credibility and influence in AI) the enemy of terminal goals (doing the most good), following a pattern common in politics where compromises eventually hollow out original principles.
3. The move away from cause prioritization and explicit moral reflection threatens to disconnect AI safety work from the fundamental values that should guide it, potentially leading to work on less important AI issues.
4. Organizations like 80,000 Hours shifting focus exclusively to AI reflects a premature conclusion that cause prioritization is "done," potentially closing off important moral reconsideration.
5. The author worries that by avoiding explicit connections to EA values, new recruits and organizations will lose sight of the ultimate aims (preventing existential risks) in favor of more mainstream but less important AI concerns.
6. Regular reflection on first principles and reconnection with other moral causes (like animal suffering and global health) serves as an important epistemic and moral check that AI safety work genuinely aims at the greatest good.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: In this first of a three-part series, Jason Green-Lowe, Executive Director of the Center for AI Policy (CAIP), makes an urgent and detailed appeal for donations to prevent the organization from shutting down within 30 days, arguing that CAIP plays a uniquely valuable role in advocating for strong, targeted federal AI safety legislation through direct Congressional engagement, but has been unexpectedly defunded by major AI safety donors.

Key points:

1. CAIP focuses on passing enforceable AI safety legislation through Congress, aiming to reduce catastrophic risks like bioweapons, intelligence explosions, and loss of human control via targeted tools such as mandatory audits, liability reform, and hardware monitoring.
2. The organization has achieved notable traction despite limited resources, including over 400 Congressional meetings, media recognition, and influence on draft legislation and appropriations processes, establishing credibility and connections with senior policymakers.
3. CAIP’s approach is differentiated by its 501(c)(4) status, direct legislative advocacy, grassroots network, and emphasis on enforceable safety requirements, which it argues are necessary complements to more moderate efforts and international diplomacy.
4. The organization is in a funding crisis, with only $150k in reserves and no secured funding for the remainder of 2025, largely due to a sudden drop in support from traditional AI safety funders—despite no clear criticism or performance concerns being communicated.
5. Green-Lowe argues that CAIP’s strategic, incremental approach is politically viable and pragmatically impactful, especially compared to proposals for AI moratoria or purely voluntary standards, which lack traction in Congress.
6. He invites individual donors to step in, offering both general and project-specific funding options, while previewing upcoming posts that will explore broader issues in AI advocacy funding and movement strategy.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: This exploratory proposal outlines a system that combines causal reasoning, economic knowledge graphs, and retrieval-augmented generation to help policymakers, analysts, and the public understand the ripple effects of economic policies—prioritizing transparent, structured explanations over predictive certainty—and invites feedback and collaboration to shape its development.

Key points:

1. Problem diagnosis: Current tools for assessing economic policy impacts are fragmented, opaque, and inaccessible to non-experts, making it hard to trace causal effects and undermining public trust and policy design.
2. Proposed solution: The author proposes a domain-specific LLM system that simulates the step-by-step effects of policy changes across interconnected economic actors using a dynamic knowledge graph and historical/contextual retrieval (RAG), emphasizing explanation rather than prediction.
3. System architecture: The model integrates four modules—(1) a historical text database, (2) an economic knowledge graph, (3) a reasoning-focused LLM, and (4) a numerical prediction layer—designed to trace and visualize how policy affects sectors, stakeholders, and outcomes over time.
4. Use cases and benefits: This system aims to support clearer communication among policymakers, researchers, and the public by making assumptions explicit, surfacing tradeoffs, and enabling structured, multi-perspective dialogue on economic consequences.
5. Challenges and design considerations: Key hurdles include building a comprehensive yet ideologically neutral knowledge graph, simulating historical events for causal validation, and designing interfaces that clearly convey uncertainty and avoid false confidence in results.
6. Call to action: The project is in an early stage and seeks input from policy experts, economists, and generalist users to refine the design and ensure it serves real-world needs.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: In this reflective and values-driven response, Kelsey argues that speculative or “fringe” work in effective altruism (EA)—like researching wild animal suffering—is not only valid but essential for ensuring the movement remains open to moral progress, grounded in real impact, and resilient against historical blind spots, even if such work differs dramatically from mainstream EA priorities.

Key points:

1. Historical counterfactuals reveal the need for moral vigilance: Kelsey suggests that imagining how EA might have behaved during past moral catastrophes (e.g. slavery, eugenics) can help identify the habits of thought needed to avoid similar errors today—such as openness to unusual arguments and marginalized perspectives.
2. Speculative ideas can safeguard against moral myopia: Arguments that challenge societal norms or advocate for neglected beings (e.g. wild animals) should be welcomed if they're motivated by the desire to maximize well-being, even when they seem absurd or unintuitive.
3. Balance between grounded action and exploratory research: A robust EA movement should simultaneously prioritize tangible, impactful work (like funding effective charities) and support exploratory efforts that may uncover new sources of suffering or effectiveness.
4. Wild animal suffering is a legitimate EA cause area: Independent of the broader argument for fringe ideas, Kelsey defends welfare biology as an emerging research field with the potential to shape future interventions, much like development economics once did.
5. Intellectual humility and compassion for differing priorities: Recognizing how hard it is to understand complex moral issues has led Kelsey to feel less frustrated by disagreements and more appreciative of others’ efforts to improve the world, even when they seem misguided.
6. Pluralism fosters epistemic flexibility: Encouraging diversity in EA goals prevents dogmatism and increases the likelihood that the community remains responsive to new evidence and moral insights.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: In this personal reflection and call to action, Victoria Dias shares her journey from disillusionment to purpose through motherhood, veganism, and Effective Altruism—culminating in her pursuit of a high-impact career that aligns with her values and enables her to create meaningful change, particularly for animals and future generations.

Key points:

1. High-impact careers prioritize maximizing positive global impact over personal or financial goals, and can be pursued in various well-paying, in-demand fields like AI safety, digital security, and sustainability.
2. Victoria's transition to Effective Altruism was driven by her personal evolution—especially through motherhood and veganism—which awakened a sense of urgency to work toward a better future for all sentient beings.
3. Her professional path shifted from mainstream tech and service jobs to mission-driven work, now serving as Systems and Volunteer Coordinator at Compromiso Verde, where she builds digital tools to support animal welfare campaigns.
4. She highlights the accessibility and appeal of EA-aligned work, noting that such roles can offer competitive compensation and support strategies like earn-to-give, making altruism professionally sustainable.
5. Nonviolent Communication played a key role in improving her effectiveness and relationships, helping her shift from being perceived as confrontational to building empathy-driven connections.
6. Victoria aims to grow the EA community by sharing her story and promoting resources, encouraging others to explore EA principles and consider aligning their careers with high-impact causes via programs like those from 80,000 Hours and EA's free online courses.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.