Rasool
Posts 17
Comments152
Topic contributions1
One of the most extensive (and tragic) studies I’ve seen followed 111 children in Senegal over an average span of 17 years. The children were monitored almost daily for malaria infection. The median child experienced 43 attacks of malaria over the course of their childhood.
From Our World in Data
Peter Hartree (of this parish) also offers AI uplift consulting to EA orgs:
I'm struggling to source this claim:
Giving What We Can expects about $15B in donations a year
It links to this Gizmodo article, which in turn links to the Nan Ransohoff 'third wave' essay, and this Wired article, which also references that Ransohoff essay
And that Ransohoff essay, as you state, suggests $37B or more per year
Dean Ball's Substack dated 1st September 2026 (emphasis mine):
I want to close on a personal note. This is the first time I am writing about this issue in quite these terms, and yet I am telling you it is inevitable. Why have I taken so long to cover this issue? Well, I have brought up the topic of digital identification for humans and agents a few times over the years, and when I did so I was largely motivated by the concerns I’ve shared here. But it is true that I—and candidly I think many of my colleagues in the profession of AI policy—largely failed to talk about this issue with the level of seriousness and urgency it required. I think there are two main reasons for this failure.
First, this stuff is weird and off-putting, and many of us felt an incentive to meet our audiences in their comfort zone rather than ours. So among “serious people” (or would-be serious people), there was a general tendency to confine candid discussion about what most of us believe our near-term future will be like to private venues. We let our hair down in Signal chats and the little nooks of Lighthaven, but when the public was watching, we spoke in more abstract, tamer-sounding terms about it all. This was especially pernicious in 2024 and 2025, when it was essentially impossible to acknowledge any serious AI risk without being labeled a “doomer.”
I am just as guilty of this as my colleagues, if not more so. The thing is that it’s unpleasant to be screamed at for being a “crazy doomer” who wants to enact worldwide fascism (and similar, and worse). Being constantly labeled in this way also limits one’s influence. So many of the people who think about the governance of superintelligence, myself included, avoided that unpleasantness and bowed to the social pressure to self-censor. I’ve stopped doing so, in part because I grew tired of the discursive straitjacket and in part because I now have an eight-month-old baby boy into whose eyes I must look every day.
…
I want to apologize for my personal failure to communicate in sufficiently serious terms about the specifics of self-sovereign AI, which I now understand to have been an enormous gap in my writing and speaking. Going forward, I will try to notice more readily when I am biting my tongue or, even worse, shutting my eyes.
USAID took down its archive of evaluation reports, but a high school student happened to have downloaded them for a ML project, and they are now available online again:
https://www.aiddata.org/blog/before-reimagining-development-data-remember-what-weve-learned
I tried draft/auction leagues, and while the draft/auction itself was incredibly fun, I found that there was never much action afterwards, trade offers were always treated suspiciously (adverse selection!)
And in regular FPL you still have to consider cost-effectiveness, consensus thinking, and have the same constraints as everyone else playing - which I like