Giving isn’t just about making a donation—it’s about making a difference.

Hi everyone, I'm Guillermo, and I'm a coach at GoalsWon.

For every paying client we take on, we fund a free accountability coaching slot for people working in high-impact areas (AI safety, biosecurity, animal welfare, global health, etc)

How it works:

• You get paired with an actual human coach (not an AI or a bot!) who does daily checkins with you on your core goals through our app, plus a monthly call
• It's meant to help with managing heavy workloads, staying focused, and keeping up execution momentum (for both personally and professionally)
• Cost is $0, ths is funded by our paying clients
• Only real ask: use it. Spots are limited and we'd rather they go to people who'll actually show up for the daily check-ins

On why we think this actually does something (know some subreddits want this spelled out, so keeping it brief...): our take after running this for a while is that most high-impact work doesn't die from bad strategy, it dies from someone not doing the unglamorous daily follow-through, especially founders and researchers juggling way too much. A coach nagging you every day turns out to be a surprisingly effective forcing function for that, and it also just helps people not burn out, which matters if you want them still doing the work in the long run.

We've also seen this play out directly as well. Among other people, we've worked with Cameron King, co-founder of a nonprofit incubated through Charity Entrepreneurship, and daily accountability coaching helped him handle the chaos of launching an org while also keeping a 500+ day personal habit streak going as a burnout guard. He wrote up how the daily structure affected his output on our blog if you want the details.

And there's decent evidence behind the mechanism too. The American Society of Training and Development: people with a specific accountability appointment with another person hit around a 95% completion rate on their goals. Solo planning doesn't come close

How to apply: https://www.goalswon.com/giving-back (scroll down to "Apply for a free slot" at the bottom.)

Happy to answer questions in the comments! 🙏

I’ve always been attracted to Effective Altruism’s core principles of impartiality, scope sensitivity, scout mindset, and recognition of tradeoffs. But recently I’ve had a niggling feeling that the EA longtermist community has lost sight of these. In particular that EA has implicitly been assuming a special status for humans — at odds with the impartiality principle.

In my post, I go through some ways I think we may be going wrong.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/npvxCNAHe3QsEppio/longtermist-ea-s-hidden-human-bias

https://jamesbrobin.substack.com/p/should-we-take-a-human-first-approach

In this post, I argue that we shouldn't prioritize humans over other animals in moral decision-making. I specifically argue against the views that:

1. Human suffering is more important than animal suffering
2. Animals suffer vastly less than humans
3. We, as humans, have a unique obligation to help other humans
4. Helping humans is best long-term

(This is relevant to EA since it's about cause prioritization, the second argument draws on Bob Fischer's work, and the fourth argument pushes against prioritizing global health and development over animal welfare.)

Hi! From Monday the 31st of August to Friday the 4th of September I will be running an (unaffiliated with BlueDot) reading group covering BlueDot's AGI Strategy curriculum.

Argument:

If you understand AI safety to be an important cause, and one to which you would like to make a positive (mostly focused on professional) contribution, this curriculum will help you find where in AI safety you can make the most effective contributions.

If you applied to the BlueDot AGI Strategy course and didn't get in, the curriculum is still publicly available for independent study - but on top of independent study, being able to discuss it with a group allows you to experience the same material through the lenses of people with different expertise who also care about AI safety. Active group discussion with varied perspectives is a great way to uncover blindspots and discover ways in which you can make a difference that you may not have considered.

The group will run every day on Zoom from 19:30-20:30 BST (11:30-12:30 PDT).

We'll spend each day on one unit of the curriculum, meeting to discuss it and our answers to its questions, after having read the content independently.

You can read more about the AGI Strategy curriculum here: https://bluedot.org/courses/agi-strategy

You can join a Discord for logistical updates about the group here: https://discord.gg/ZZ8fphAEd

Comment here, or DM on Reddit or Discord if you would like to participate!

Brief background on me: I'm Dillan, I have a little experience in facilitation in AI safety, and want to expand it. I care about the area - AI has a much lower resolution of predictability than other major technologies, and this alongside its widespread use makes it an area where a lot of good can be done. I want to learn more so I can contribute more, so I applied to a BlueDot cohort. I didn't get in, so I'm running an unofficial group to help me learn the material and get facilitation experience.

Hey guys.

I wanted answers from both a philosophical standpoint and environmental standpoint. First off, some context. I turned vegetarian about 7 years ago, after being a pretty hardcore meat eater for the early years of my life. But I've recently been feeling like I'm not doing enough. Online, I constantly see people shaming all vegetarians as well, as we don't do enough. On the other hand, I come from a hardcore meat-eating asian country where fish is eaten almost every meal of the day, to which I politely decline every time I visit relatives. This starts some pretty heated conversations often.

So, I guess the first thing is, how do I justify to meat-eaters that meat-eating is bad? I've read up online and watched plenty of documentaries, but statistics like how many animals are being eaten or the amount of land being used by the meat industry doesn't really change anyone's opinion. What is something I can tell a meat-eater to truly convince them?

Second, tell me - and you can be as blunt as you need- the difference between veganism vs vegetarianism. I want to know the argument for veganism as opposed to vegetarianism from both a philosophical and environmental perspective. Recently, I've started going out of my way to only drink milk from local farms, however I must admit I indulge in chocolate and cheese time to time. I love the latter a lot, and giving them up will be very difficult, but I'll do it if needed.

This is what the online hate (especially within activist groups/intellectual groups like EA) don't understand. I don't want to only be "ethical" only so long as it is convenient, but I really want to understand the arguments for veganism first. Thanks!!

Wondering if many others have received this email

I plan to help blood banks and drives in Africa increase their supply by encouraging more donations. Ideally, I want to ship pints to the areas that need them most, aiming to save lives directly through these efforts.

Let me know if you want to connect!

I’m seeing a lot of people sharing posts from the Collectively Gary blog. Content and quality of the arguments made there aside, I think readers should know up front that posts there are between 98-100 percent written by AI, according to Pangram. I don’t have a kneejerk opposition to the technology, but in my limited time I do want to read human writing.

40M. The Netherlands.

I've been thinking more and more about how I want to contribute to a better world. I have a good career, some financial means, and over the years I've built up knowledge, experience and a certain amount of influence.

I'd like to use those things for something that has a positive impact beyond just my own life. Not just by donating money, but also by contributing my time, knowledge, network and professional experience where it can genuinely make a difference.

The problem is: I don't really know where or how to start.

So I'm curious: how did you figure out where you could make the biggest positive impact?

I’ve been reading the biographies of moral heroes, and I’d guess ~50% of them struggled with ongoing health issues.

Being sick sucks, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be able to do a ton of good

• Florence Nightingale
• Benjamin Franklin
• William Wilberforce
• Alexander Hamilton
• Helen Keller

It’s not everybody, but it’s a surprising percentage of them.

I myself struggle with a chronic mystery ailment and I find it inspiring to hear about all of these people who still managed to do great things, even though their bodies were not always so cooperative.

(Also, just as an aside, the book Stop Being Your Symptoms, Start Being Yourself didn’t cure my illness, but it did reduce its effects on my life by about 85%, and I can’t recommend it enough. It’s basically CBT/psychology stuff applied to chronic illness)

Dear all,

We're a group of MIT/UChicago/Yale alumni, and are interested in effective altruism. We're organizing a reading group on "AI for Food Innovation", with a view towards collaborations on alternative proteins (i.e. publishing research in journals). Please let me know if you're interested, or if you have any suggestions for papers to read. We will be using the below resources as a starting point. Thanks.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.21556, "Artificial Intelligence for Food Innovation"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40509409/, "Maillard Reaction: Mechanism, Influencing Parameters, Advantages, Disadvantages, and Food Industrial Applications: A Review"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.06553 "Recipe1M+: A Dataset for Learning Cross-Modal Embeddings for Cooking Recipes and Food Images"
https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-cultivated-meat/

High Impact Professionals is excited to announce that applications are now open for the next round of our Impact Accelerator Program (IAP). The IAP is a free 6-week virtual program designed to equip experienced professionals with the knowledge and tools to make a meaningful impact and empower them to start taking actionable steps right away.

To date, the program's high action focus has proven successful:

• 97 participants (out of 569 in total) from our first nine rounds have already transitioned into high-impact careers, including founding new high-impact organizations and joining orgs like GiveWell, Charity Entrepreneurship, MATS, Malaria Consortium, and more.
• 215 additional participants are taking concrete actions toward a high-impact career, including skilled volunteering at high-impact orgs.
• 80 participants have taken the  🔶 10% Pledge (24) or 🔷 Trial Pledge (56).

Format

• Weekly individual work (2–3 hours): a mix of reading and taking concrete impact-oriented actions
• Virtual group sessions (1.5 hrs), including mastermind sessions with tailored feedback from your cohort
• 1-on-1 sessions with facilitators and other participants
• Extracurricular sessions on topics like job search strategy, networking, and recruiter Q&As
• Post-program support, community, and alumni sessions

Important Dates:

▪️ Application deadline: Sunday, September 20
▪️ Program runs: October 26 - December 6
▪️ Info Webinars: Thursday September 17, 7-8am UTC: https://luma.com/8aoxywix and 4-5pm UTC: https://luma.com/ywnvsfzk

New for 2026: Entrepreneurship Track

If you've been thinking of starting your own high-impact org, the IAP Entrepreneurship Track offers guidance, network, and tailored support. It includes everything in the standard IAP, plus a founder-focused cohort, a facilitator experienced in the high-impact entrepreneurial space, and a curated network of incubators and advisors.

Who Should Apply?

Motivated, results-driven, experienced mid-career/senior professionals who want to maximize their impact and are seeking guidance in navigating the path there. If you're unsure whether you fit, we encourage you to apply anyway.

Know Someone Who'd Be a Great Fit?

Please share this with them. Applications are open until September 20.

Learn More & Apply Today

Two years ago, my kidneys failed, and my life changed in ways I never could have prepared for.

I’m now dependent on dialysis to stay alive, and eventually my health reached a point where I had to stop working and go on disability. I’m incredibly grateful to have disability benefits, but they only replace part of what I earned while working. Unfortunately, my mortgage, groceries, utilities, insurance, medications and all the other costs of simply existing didn’t decrease when my income did.

For a while, I managed. Then I started using credit cards to bridge the gaps. A grocery bill here, a medication that wasn’t completely covered there, an unexpected expense when there simply wasn’t enough left. The balances slowly grew, and now the interest is making it incredibly difficult to get back on top of things.

Normally, my answer would be simple: work more. Pick up extra hours, get another job, do whatever I needed to do.

But dialysis is exhausting, and right now my body just doesn’t have that option.

I’ve also looked into government assistance, but I’m in that frustrating gap where I apparently make “too much” to qualify for additional help while still not making enough to keep up with everything.

The hardest part has been realizing that while I’m already trying to cope with kidney failure and dialysis, I’m lying awake at night calculating credit-card payments and worrying about interest.

I feel like I can’t even be sick in peace.

So I made a GoFundMe.

I’m not expecting strangers to fix my life, and I would never want anyone to give money they can’t afford. I’m just hoping to get enough breathing room to bring down the debt I’ve accumulated since becoming unable to work and let more of my disability income go toward actually living.

Even a few dollars helps. And if you can’t donate, even taking a moment to read or share my fundraiser means something to me.

GoFundMe: Help Me Stay Afloat While Living With Kidney Failure

https://gofund.me/b5ce05f7a

Thank you for reading. ❤️

Most impact reports are built around a fairly predictable set of questions:

What did we do?
What did it cost?
What outcomes did we observe?

I'm wondering whether a useful piece is systematically missing:

What did we try that didn't work?

There seems to be a real incentive problem here.

If an organization openly documents three interventions that underperformed, that could be evidence that it measures seriously, learns, and stops doing ineffective things.

But to a donor comparing two reports, it may simply look worse than an organization that talks extensively about successes and quietly stops discussing failures.

So voluntary transparency could end up punishing the organizations that practice it most seriously.

There's also a classification problem. "It failed" can mean very different things:

• execution was poor
• the underlying theory of change was wrong
• evidence was inconclusive
• an external event changed the conditions
• the intervention worked but created unexpected costs or harms

I'm wondering whether failure reporting would be more useful if it became a standard part of impact reporting rather than an occasional narrative.

For each major intervention, something like:

• intended outcome
• observed outcome
• important limitations / uncertainty
• unexpected negative effects
• continue, modify or stop — and why

Would that actually improve philanthropic decision-making?

Or would it mostly create another reporting burden and incentivize organizations to describe every failure in defensive language?

What would you genuinely want a serious charity to disclose when an intervention underperforms?

Most people know Axelrod's tournament result as a slogan. Cooperation wins. I want to argue that the slogan buries the interesting part, and that the interesting part has practical consequences for how you design anything cooperative.

Quick recap so we are working from the same object. Around 1980 Robert Axelrod invited game theorists, economists and mathematicians to submit strategies for the repeated prisoner's dilemma. Entries included programs that modeled their opponents and probed for exploitable weakness. The winner was the shortest submission: cooperate on the first move, then copy whatever the other player just did.

Here is the part that gets dropped. Tit for tat cannot beat any opponent head to head. It never defects first, so in a two player matchup its ceiling is a tie. Against an exploiter it eats the first defection and never recovers the deficit. Its head to head record against the field is roughly a wall of ties and small losses.

It won the tournament on total points, not on wins. It accumulated across every pairing while the aggressive strategies harvested the naive ones and then destroyed each other.

I think that distinction matters more than the slogan does, because it means the result is not "nice agents beat nasty agents." It is "in a population, the strategy that never needs to win locally can dominate globally." Those are different claims and only the second one survives contact with the data.

The four properties Axelrod extracted:

Nice. Never defect first.

Provocable. Respond when defected against. Absorbing exploitation is not cooperation, it is a subsidy paid to defectors.

Forgiving. Punish once, then return to cooperating. Extended retaliation locks two cooperative strategies into a mutual death spiral over one noisy move.

Clear. Be legible enough that others can identify you as worth cooperating with. Unreadable strategies get treated as threats.

Now the conditions, which I think are more load bearing than the properties and get discussed less.

The result requires repeat interaction, an indefinite horizon so no one can backward induct from a known final round, and the ability to identify who you dealt with before. Remove any one of those and defection becomes dominant, not merely tempting. This is not a caveat, it is the actual mechanism. Tit for tat's power is entirely borrowed from the shadow of the future.

Which suggests the design question is not "how do we encourage cooperative behavior." It is "how do we manufacture the three conditions." Those are engineering problems. Identity that persists. Interaction that recurs. A horizon nobody can see the end of. Every one of them is something you can build, degrade, or accidentally destroy.

It also predicts exactly where cooperation should fail, and as far as I can tell it does: anonymous one shot encounters, final rounds, situations where reputation does not carry forward. That is not a story about bad people. It is a structural forecast, and its accuracy is part of why I take the model seriously rather than treating it as an inspirational poster.

Two things I am genuinely unsure about and would like pushed on.

First, how much of the original result is an artifact of the submission pool rather than a general truth. The tournament sampled the strategies that particular academics happened to write in 1980, not the strategy space. Later work with noise and with evolutionary dynamics complicates it in ways I have not fully worked through.

Second, whether the clarity property scales. Being legible is cheap in a small population where reputation is observable. In a large one, legibility has to be manufactured by some infrastructure, and whoever operates that infrastructure now holds a lever nobody in the model accounted for.

For those of you who work on cooperation and institution design directly: is the three conditions framing standard where you sit, or am I reconstructing something that already has a better name?

Three handbooks, three policy areas, twenty-two years apart, all saying the same thing about themselves.

Sources

1. Rio Markers Handbook, Annex 20 to the DAC Reporting Directives, para 11, heading Purpose-based:

"Activities are thus to be marked according to their stated objectives and purpose and not primarily in relation to their relevance or outcomes or possible positive side-effects, i.e. the methodology is purpose-based."

Para 16: "the markers are considered descriptive rather than strictly quantitative."

1. Handbook on the OECD-DAC Gender Equality Policy Marker, DCD/DAC/STAT(2018)9/ADD2/FINAL, p.8:

"The DAC policy markers apply to donor spending commitments. As such, they measure planned investments and not disbursements."

https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/STAT(2018)9/ADD2/FINAL/en/pdf9/ADD2/FINAL/en/pdf)

1. Disability Marker Handbook, DCD/DAC/STAT(2020)48, 10 December 2020:

"The marker cannot and does not intend to measure the outcome or impact of a project."

And on verification, from the same document:

"The Secretariat is not able to conduct in-depth checks for each reporter and does not have access to sufficient qualitative information to review the marking of each project."

https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/STAT(2020)48/en/pdf48/en/pdf)

1. The Directives themselves, DCD/DAC(2026)14/FINAL. Para 214: "Policy marker data are descriptive rather than quantitative." Box 10, p.135: a project marked at commitment "will be flagged as climate-related throughout its lifetime."

https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC(2026)14/FINAL/en/pdf14/FINAL/en/pdf)

1. OECD's own 2013 review, DCD/DAC/STAT(2013)5, para 4:

"The Rio marker system was originally designed to produce descriptive rather than quantitative data... But the emphasis now is on measuring climate finance, i.e. obtaining a single definite figure instead of a graduated qualitative assessment."

1. Weikmans, Roberts, Baum, Bustos & Durand (2017), Development in Practice 27(4):458-471. Re-read all 5,200 activities donors marked climate-adaptation in 2012. $10.1bn claimed, $2.35bn found.

2. Gates Foundation OECD profile, Development Co-operation Profiles 2025: 99.5% of bilateral allocable contributions screened against the gender equality marker, ~$2.2bn/year.

Very large, very very widely-loved program.

https://imaginationlibrary.com/international-research/

Probably would not meet any effective altruism criteria, ex-ante? But grew so big via being beloved that it probably did more good than an optimised program that stayed small?

Did it generate net new altruism or divert altruism away from other goals?

Any other thoughts or questions? Lessons EA could learn?