What posts would you like someone to write?
By Toby Tremlett🔹 @ 2025-09-29T12:49 (+16)
We've got a Draft Amnesty Week coming up soon (October 13-19). During Draft Amnesty, people publish drafts that have been lying around forever, but they also write new, draftier, posts.
If they do... what do you want them to write? What would you like to read on the EA Forum?
PS- This question has had some great answers before, see here for February's version.
When answering in this thread, I suggest putting each idea in a different answer, so that comment threads don't get too confusing and ideas can be voted on separately.
If you see an answer here describing a post you think has already been written, please lend a hand and link it here.
A few suggestions for possible answers:
- A question you would like someone to answer: “How, historically, did AI safety become an EA cause area?”
- A type of experience you would like to hear about: “I’d love to hear about the experience of moving from consulting into biosecurity policy. Does anyone know anyone like this who might want to write about their experience?”
- A gap in an argument that you'd like someone to fill.
If you have loads of ideas, consider writing an entire "posts I would like someone to write" post.
Why put this up before Draft Amnesty Week?
If you see a post idea here that you think you might be positioned to answer, Draft Amnesty Week might be a great time to post it. During Draft Amnesty Week, your posts don't have to be thoroughly thought through, or even fully drafted. Bullet points and missing sections are allowed so that you can have a lower bar for posting. More details.
closetsolipsist @ 2025-09-30T20:11 (+10)
I would love it if someone wrote about strategies to prevent AI Safety from becoming politicized.
Seth Ariel Green 🔸 @ 2025-10-03T13:25 (+4)
I'd like to see a serious re-examination of the evidence underpinning GiveWell's core recommendations, focusing on
- how recent is the evidence?
- what are the core results on the primary outcomes of interest?
- How much is GiveWell doing add-on analysis/theorizing to boost those results into something amenable, or do the results speak for themselves?
- How reproducible/open-science-y/pre-registered/etc. are the papers under discussion?
- Are there any working papers/in-progress things worth adding to the evidence base?
I did this for one intervention in GiveWell should fund an SMC replication & @Holden Karnofsky did a version of it in Minimal-trust investigations, but I think these investigations are worth doing multiple times over the years from multiple parties. It's a lot of work though, so I see why it doesn't get done too often.
PabloAMC 🔸 @ 2025-09-30T08:40 (+4)
I'd love someone to write how someone who feels most comfortable donating to the GiveWell top charities fund should address donating to animal charities. I know there exist ways like Animal Charity Evaluators Movement Grants, the Giving What We Can Effective Animal Advocacy fund, or the EA Animal Welfare Fund.
However, these all feel a bit different-flavoured than GiveWell's top charities fund in that they seem to be more opportunistic, small or actively managed; in contrast to GiveWell's larger, established, and typically more stable charities. This makes it much harder for smaller donors to understand how different theories of change are being considered, or keep track of the money's impact.