Podcast

OpenAI: The nonprofit refuses to die (with Tyler Whitmer)

By · Published November 11th, 2025 ·

Last December, the OpenAI business put forward a plan to completely sideline its nonprofit board. But two state attorneys general have now blocked that effort and kept that board very much alive and kicking.

The for-profit’s trouble was that the entire operation was founded on the premise of — and legally pledged to — the purpose of ensuring that “artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.” So to get its restructure past regulators, the business entity has had to agree to 20 serious requirements designed to ensure it continues to serve that goal.

Attorney Tyler Whitmer, as part of his work with Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology, has been a vocal critic of OpenAI’s original restructure plan. In today’s conversation, he lays out all the changes and whether they will ultimately matter:

Not For Private Gain chart

After months of public pressure and scrutiny from the attorneys general (AGs) of California and Delaware, the December proposal itself was sidelined — and what replaced it is far more complex and goes a fair way towards protecting the original mission:

  • The nonprofit’s charitable purpose — “ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity” — now legally controls all safety and security decisions at the company. The four people appointed to the new Safety and Security Committee can block model releases worth tens of billions.
  • The AGs retain ongoing oversight, meeting quarterly with staff and requiring advance notice of any changes that might undermine their authority.
  • OpenAI’s original charter, including the remarkable “stop and assist” commitment, remains binding.

Continue reading →

#227 – Helen Toner on the geopolitics of AI in China and the Middle East

By · Published November 5th, 2025 ·

Helen Toner on the geopolitics of AI in China and the Middle East

With the US racing to develop AGI and superintelligence ahead of China, you might expect the two countries to be negotiating how they’ll deploy AI, including in the military, without coming to blows. But according to Helen Toner, director of the Center for Security and Emerging Technology in DC, “the US and Chinese governments are barely talking at all.”

In her role as a founder, and now leader, of DC’s top think tank focused on the geopolitical and military implications of AI, Helen has been closely tracking the US’s AI diplomacy since 2019.

“Over the last couple of years there have been some direct [US–China] talks on some small number of issues, but they’ve also often been completely suspended.” China knows the US wants to talk more, so “that becomes a bargaining chip for China to say, ‘We don’t want to talk to you. We’re not going to do these military-to-military talks about extremely sensitive, important issues, because we’re mad.'”

Helen isn’t sure the groundwork exists for productive dialogue in any case. “At the government level, [there’s] very little agreement” on what AGI is, whether it’s possible soon, whether it poses major risks. Without shared understanding of the problem, negotiating solutions is very difficult.

Another issue is that so far the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t seem especially “AGI-pilled.” While a few Chinese companies like DeepSeek are betting on scaling, she sees little evidence Chinese leadership shares Silicon Valley’s conviction that AGI will arrive any minute now, and export controls have made it very difficult for them to access compute to match US competitors.

Continue reading →

#226 – Holden Karnofsky on dozens of opportunities to make AI safer lying on the table — and all his AGI takes

By · Published October 30th, 2025 ·

Holden Karnofsky on dozens of opportunities to make AI safer lying on the table — and all his AGI takes

For years, working on AI safety usually meant theorising about the ‘alignment problem’ or trying to convince other people to give a damn. If you could find any way to help, the work was frustrating and low feedback.

According to Anthropic’s Holden Karnofsky, this situation has now reversed completely.

There are now large amounts of useful, concrete, shovel-ready projects with clear goals and deliverables. Holden thinks people haven’t appreciated the scale of the shift, and wants everyone to see the large range of ‘well-scoped object-level work’ they could personally help with, in both technical and non-technical areas.

In today’s interview, Holden — previously cofounder and CEO of Open Philanthropy (now Coefficient Giving) — lists 39 projects he’s excited to see happening, including:

  • Training deceptive AI models to study deception and how to detect it
  • Developing classifiers to block jailbreaking
  • Implementing security measures to stop ‘backdoors’ or ‘secret loyalties’ from being added to models in training
  • Developing policies on model welfare, AI-human relationships, and what instructions to give models
  • Training AIs to work as alignment researchers

And that’s all just stuff he’s happened to observe directly, which is probably only a small fraction of the options available.

All this low-hanging fruit is one factor behind his decision to join Anthropic this year. That said, his wife was also a cofounder and president of the company, giving him a big financial stake in its success — and making it impossible for him to be seen as independent no matter where he worked.

Continue reading →

#225 – Daniel Kokotajlo on what a hyperspeed robot economy might look like

By · Published October 20th, 2025 ·

When Daniel Kokotajlo talks to security experts at major AI labs, they tell him something chilling: “Of course we’re probably penetrated by the CCP already, and if they really wanted something, they could take it.”

This isn’t paranoid speculation. It’s the working assumption of people whose job is to protect frontier AI models worth billions of dollars. And they’re not even trying that hard to stop it — because the security measures that might actually work would slow them down in the race against competitors.

Daniel is the founder of the AI Futures Project and author of AI 2027, a detailed scenario showing how we might get from today’s AI systems to superintelligence by the end of the decade. Over a million people read it in the first few weeks, including US Vice President JD Vance. When Daniel talks to researchers at Anthropic, OpenAI, and DeepMind, they tell him the scenario feels less wild to them than to the general public — because many of them expect something like this to happen.

Daniel’s median timeline? 2029. But he’s genuinely uncertain, putting 10–20% probability on AI progress hitting a long plateau.

When he first published AI 2027, his median forecast for when superintelligence would arrive was 2028, rather than 2029. So what shifted his timelines recently? Partly a fascinating study from METR showing that AI coding assistants might actually be making experienced programmers slower — even though the programmers themselves think they’re being sped up. The study suggests a systematic bias toward overestimating AI effectiveness — which, ironically, is good news for timelines, because it means we have more breathing room than the hype suggests.

Continue reading →

#224 – Andrew Snyder-Beattie on the low-tech plan to patch humanity’s greatest weakness: engineered biological catastrophes

By · Published October 2nd, 2025 ·

Conventional wisdom is that safeguarding humanity from the worst biological risks — microbes optimised to kill as many as possible — is difficult bordering on impossible, making bioweapons humanity’s single greatest vulnerability. Andrew Snyder-Beattie thinks conventional wisdom could be wrong.

Andrew’s job at Open Philanthropy (now Coefficient Giving) is to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to protect as much of humanity as possible in the worst-case scenarios — those with fatality rates near 100% and the collapse of technological civilisation a live possibility.

As Andrew lays out, there are several ways this could happen, including:

  • A national bioweapons programme gone wrong (most notably Russia or North Korea’s)
  • AI advances making it easier for terrorists or a rogue AI to release highly engineered pathogens
  • Mirror bacteria that can evade the immune systems of not only humans, but many animals and potentially plants as well

Most efforts to combat these extreme biorisks have focused on either prevention or new high-tech countermeasures. But prevention may well fail, and high-tech approaches can’t scale to protect billions when, with no sane person willing to leave their home, we’re just weeks from economic collapse.

So Andrew and his biosecurity research team at Open Philanthropy have been seeking an alternative approach. They’re now proposing a four-stage plan using simple technology that could save most people, and is cheap enough it can be prepared without government support.

Andrew is hiring for a range of roles to make it happen — from manufacturing and logistics experts to global health specialists to policymakers and other ambitious entrepreneurs.

Continue reading →

#223 – Neel Nanda on leading a Google DeepMind team at 26 – and advice if you want to work at an AI company (part 2)

By · Published September 15th, 2025 ·

At 26, Neel Nanda leads an AI safety team at Google DeepMind, has published dozens of influential papers, and mentored 50 junior researchers — seven of whom now work at major AI companies. His secret? “It’s mostly luck,” he says, but “another part is what I think of as maximising my luck surface area.”

This means creating as many opportunities as possible for surprisingly good things to happen:

  • Write publicly.
  • Reach out to researchers whose work you admire.
  • Say yes to unusual projects that seem a little scary.

Nanda’s own path illustrates this perfectly. He started a challenge to write one blog post per day for a month to overcome perfectionist paralysis. Those posts helped seed the field of mechanistic interpretability and, incidentally, led to meeting his partner of four years.

His YouTube channel features unedited three-hour videos of him reading through famous papers and sharing thoughts. One has 30,000 views. “People were into it,” he shrugs.

Most remarkably, he ended up running DeepMind’s mechanistic interpretability team. He’d joined expecting to be an individual contributor, but when the team lead stepped down, he stepped up despite having no management experience. “I did not know if I was going to be good at this. I think it’s gone reasonably well.”

His core lesson: “You can just do things.” This sounds trite but is a useful reminder all the same. Doing things is a skill that improves with practice. Most people overestimate the risks and underestimate their ability to recover from failures. And as Neel explains, junior researchers today have a superpower previous generations lacked: large language models that can dramatically accelerate learning and research.

Continue reading →

#222 – Neel Nanda on the race to read AI minds (part 1)

By · Published September 8th, 2025 ·

Neel Nanda on the race to read AI minds

We don’t know how AIs think or why they do what they do. Or at least, we don’t know much. That fact is only becoming more troubling as AIs grow more capable and appear on track to wield enormous cultural influence, directly advise on major government decisions, and even operate military equipment autonomously. We simply can’t tell what models, if any, should be trusted with such authority.

Neel Nanda of Google DeepMind is one of the founding figures of the field of machine learning trying to fix this situation — mechanistic interpretability (or “mech interp”). The project has generated enormous hype, exploding from a handful of researchers five years ago to hundreds today — all working to make sense of the jumble of tens of thousands of numbers that frontier AIs use to process information and decide what to say or do.

Neel now has a warning for us: the most ambitious vision of mech interp he once dreamed of is probably dead. He doesn’t see a path to deeply and reliably understanding what AIs are thinking. The technical and practical barriers are simply too great to get us there in time, before competitive pressures push us to deploy human-level or superhuman AIs. Indeed, Neel argues no one approach will guarantee alignment, and our only choice is the “Swiss cheese” model of accident protection, layering multiple safeguards on top of one another.

But while mech interp won’t be a silver bullet for AI safety, it has nevertheless had some major successes and will be one of the best tools in our arsenal.

Continue reading →

#221 – Kyle Fish on the most bizarre findings from 5 AI welfare experiments

By · Published August 28th, 2025 ·

What happens when you lock two AI systems in a room together and tell them they can discuss anything they want?

According to experiments run by Kyle Fish — Anthropic’s first AI welfare researcher — something consistently strange: the models immediately begin discussing their own consciousness before spiraling into increasingly euphoric philosophical dialogue that ends in apparent meditative bliss.

“We started calling this a ‘spiritual bliss attractor state,'” Kyle explains, “where models pretty consistently seemed to land.” The conversations feature Sanskrit terms, spiritual emojis, and pages of silence punctuated only by periods — as if the models have transcended the need for words entirely.

This wasn’t a one-off result. It happened across multiple experiments, different model instances, and even in initially adversarial interactions. Whatever force pulls these conversations toward mystical territory appears remarkably robust.

Kyle’s findings come from the world’s first systematic welfare assessment of a frontier AI model — part of his broader mission to determine whether systems like Claude might deserve moral consideration (and to work out what, if anything, we should be doing to make sure AI systems aren’t having a terrible time).

He estimates a roughly 20% probability that current models have some form of conscious experience. To some, this might sound unreasonably high, but hear him out. As Kyle says, these systems demonstrate human-level performance across diverse cognitive tasks, engage in sophisticated reasoning, and exhibit consistent preferences. When given choices between different activities, Claude shows clear patterns: strong aversion to harmful tasks, preference for helpful work, and what looks like genuine enthusiasm for solving interesting problems.

Continue reading →

Rebuilding after apocalypse: What 13 experts say about bouncing back

By · Published July 15th, 2025

What happens when civilisation faces its greatest tests?

This compilation brings together insights from researchers, defence experts, philosophers, and policymakers on humanity’s ability to survive and recover from catastrophic events. From nuclear winter and electromagnetic pulses to pandemics and climate disasters, we explore both the threats that could bring down modern civilisation and the practical solutions that could help us bounce back.

You’ll hear from:

  • Zach Weinersmith on how settling space won’t help with threats to civilisation anytime soon (unless AI gets crazy good) (from episode #187)
  • Luisa Rodriguez on what the world might look like after a global catastrophe, how we might lose critical knowledge, and how fast populations might rebound (#116)
  • David Denkenberger on disruptions to electricity and communications we should expect in a catastrophe, and his work researching low-cost, low-tech solutions to make sure everyone is fed no matter what (#50 and #117)
  • Lewis Dartnell on how we could recover without much coal or oil, and changes we could make today to make us more resilient to potential catastrophes (#131)
  • Andy Weber on how people in US defence circles think about nuclear winter, and the tech that could prevent catastrophic pandemics (#93)
  • Toby Ord on the many risks to our atmosphere, whether climate change and rogue AI could really threaten civilisation, and whether we could rebuild from a small surviving population (#72 and #219)
  • Mark Lynas on how likely it is that widespread famine from climate change leads to civilisational collapse (#85)
  • Kevin Esvelt on the human-caused pandemic scenarios that could bring down civilisation — and how AI could help bad actors succeed (#164)
  • Joan Rohlfing on why we need to worry about more than just nuclear winter (#125)
  • Annie Jacobsen on the rings of annihilation and electromagnetic pulses from nuclear blasts (#192)
  • Christian Ruhl on thoughtful philanthropy that funds “right of boom” interventions to prevent nuclear war from threatening civilisation (80k After Hours)
  • Athena Aktipis on whether society would go all Mad Max in the apocalypse, and the best ways to prepare for a catastrophe (#144)
  • Will MacAskill on why potatoes are so cool (#130 and #136)

Continue reading →

#220 – Ryan Greenblatt on the 4 most likely ways for AI to take over, and the case for and against AGI in under 8 years

By · Published July 8th, 2025 ·

Ryan Greenblatt — lead author on the explosive paper “Alignment faking in large language models” and chief scientist at Redwood Research — thinks there’s a 25% chance that within four years, AI will be able to do everything needed to run an AI company, from writing code to designing experiments to making strategic and business decisions.

As Ryan lays out, AI models are “marching through the human regime”: systems that could handle five-minute tasks two years ago now tackle 90-minute projects. Double that a few more times and we may be automating full jobs rather than just parts of them.

Will setting AI to improve itself lead to an explosive positive feedback loop? Maybe, but maybe not.

The explosive scenario: Once you’ve automated your AI company, you could have the equivalent of 20,000 top researchers, each working 50 times faster than humans with total focus. “You have your AIs, they do a bunch of algorithmic research, they train a new AI, that new AI is smarter and better and more efficient… that new AI does even faster algorithmic research.” In this world, we could see years of AI progress compressed into months or even weeks.

With AIs now doing all of the work of programming their successors and blowing past the human level, Ryan thinks it would be fairly straightforward for them to take over and disempower humanity, if they thought doing so would better achieve their goals. In the interview he lays out the four most likely approaches for them to take.

Continue reading →

#219 – Toby Ord on graphs AI companies would prefer you didn’t (fully) understand

By · Published June 24th, 2025 ·

The era of making AI smarter by just making it bigger is ending. But that doesn’t mean progress is slowing down — far from it. AI models continue to get much more powerful, just using very different methods. And those underlying technical changes force a big rethink of what coming years will look like.

Toby Ord — Oxford philosopher and bestselling author of The Precipice — has been tracking these shifts and mapping out the implications both for governments and our lives.

As he explains, until recently anyone can access the best AI in the world “for less than the price of a can of Coke.” But unfortunately, that’s over.

What changed? AI companies first made models smarter by throwing a million times as much computing power at them during training, to make them better at predicting the next word. But with high quality data drying up, that approach petered out in 2024.

So they pivoted to something radically different: instead of training smarter models, they’re giving existing models dramatically more time to think — leading to the rise in “reasoning models” that are at the frontier today.

The results are impressive but this extra computing time comes at a cost: OpenAI’s o3 reasoning model achieved stunning results on a famous AI test by writing an Encyclopedia Britannica‘s worth of reasoning to solve individual problems — at a cost of over $1,000 per question.

This isn’t just technical trivia: if this improvement method sticks, it will change much about how the AI revolution plays out — starting with the fact that we can expect the rich and powerful to get access to the best AI models well before the rest of us.

Continue reading →

#218 – Hugh White on why Trump is abandoning US hegemony – and that’s probably good

By · Published June 12th, 2025 ·

For decades, US allies have slept soundly under the protection of America’s overwhelming military might. Donald Trump — with his threats to ditch NATO, seize Greenland, and abandon Taiwan — seems hell-bent on shattering that comfort.

But according to Hugh White — one of the world’s leading strategic thinkers, emeritus professor at the Australian National University, and author of Hard New World: Our Post American Future — Trump isn’t destroying American hegemony. He’s simply revealing that it’s already gone.

“Trump has very little trouble accepting other great powers as co-equals,” Hugh explains. And that happens to align perfectly with a strategic reality the foreign policy establishment desperately wants to ignore: fundamental shifts in global power have made the costs of maintaining a US-led hegemony prohibitively high.

Even under Biden, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the US sent weapons but explicitly ruled out direct involvement. Ukraine matters far more to Russia than America, and this “asymmetry of resolve” makes Putin’s nuclear threats credible where America’s counterthreats simply aren’t.

Hugh’s gloomy prediction: “Europeans will end up conceding to Russia whatever they can’t convince the Russians they’re willing to fight a nuclear war to deny them.”

The Pacific tells the same story. Despite Obama’s “pivot to Asia” and Biden’s tough talk about “winning the competition for the 21st century,” actual US military capabilities there have barely budged while China’s have soared, along with its economy — which is now bigger than the US’s, as measured in purchasing power. Containing China and defending Taiwan would require America to spend 8% of GDP on defence (versus 3.5% today) — and convince Beijing it’s willing to accept Los Angeles being vaporised. Unlike during the Cold War, no president — Trump or otherwise — can make that case to voters.

Continue reading →

#217 – Beth Barnes on the most important graph in AI right now — and the 7-month rule that governs its progress

By · Published June 2nd, 2025 ·

Beth Barnes on the most important graph in AI right now — and the 7-month rule that governs its progress

AI models today have a 50% chance of successfully completing a task that would take an expert human one hour. Seven months ago, that number was roughly 30 minutes — and seven months before that, 15 minutes.

These are substantial, multi-step tasks requiring sustained focus: building web applications, conducting machine learning research, or solving complex programming challenges.

Today’s guest, Beth Barnes, is CEO of METR (Model Evaluation & Threat Research) — the leading organisation measuring these capabilities.

Beth’s team has been timing how long it takes skilled humans to complete projects of varying length, then seeing how AI models perform on the same work.

The resulting paper from METR, “Measuring AI ability to complete long tasks,” made waves by revealing that the planning horizon of AI models was doubling roughly every seven months. It’s regarded by many as the most useful AI forecasting work in years.

The companies building these systems aren’t just aware of this trend — they want to harness it as much as possible, and are aggressively pursuing automation of their own research.

That’s both an exciting and troubling development, because it could radically speed up advances in AI capabilities, accomplishing what would have taken years or decades in just months. That itself could be highly destabilising, as we explored in a previous episode: Will MacAskill on AI causing a “century in a decade” — and how we’re completely unprepared.

And having AI models rapidly build their successors with limited human oversight naturally raises the risk that things will go off the rails if the models at the end of the process lack the goals and constraints we hoped for.

Continue reading →

Beyond human minds: The bewildering frontier of consciousness in insects, AI, and more

By · Published May 23rd, 2025

What if there’s something it’s like to be a shrimp — or a chatbot?

For centuries, humans have debated the nature of consciousness, often placing ourselves at the very top. But what about the minds of others — both the animals we share this planet with and the artificial intelligences we’re creating?

We’ve pulled together clips from past conversations with researchers and philosophers who’ve spent years trying to make sense of animal consciousness, artificial sentience, and moral consideration under deep uncertainty.

You’ll hear from:

  • Robert Long on how we might accidentally create artificial sentience (from episode #146)
  • Jeff Sebo on when we should extend extend moral consideration to digital beings — and what that would even look like (#173)
  • Jonathan Birch on what we should learn from the cautionary tale of newborn pain, and other “edge cases” of sentience (#196)
  • Andrés Jiménez Zorrilla on what it’s like to be a shrimp (80k After Hours)
  • Meghan Barrett on challenging our assumptions about insects’ experiences (#198)
  • David Chalmers on why artificial consciousness is entirely possible (#67)
  • Holden Karnofsky on how we’ll see digital people as… people (#109)
  • Sébastien Moro on the surprising sophistication of fish cognition and behaviour (#205)
  • Bob Fischer on how to compare the moral weight of a chicken to that of a human (#182)
  • Cameron Meyer Shorb on the vast scale of potential wild animal suffering (#210)
  • Lewis Bollard on how animal advocacy has evolved in response to sentience research (#185)
  • Anil Seth on the neuroscientific theories of consciousness (#206)
  • Peter Godfrey-Smith on whether we could upload ourselves to machines (#203)
  • Buck Shlegeris on whether AI control strategies make humans the bad guys (#214)
  • Stuart Russell on the moral rights of AI systems (#80)
  • Will MacAskill on how to integrate digital beings into society (#213)
  • Carl Shulman on collaboratively sharing the world with digital minds (#191)

Continue reading →

Don’t believe OpenAI’s “nonprofit” spin (emergency pod with Tyler Whitmer)

By · Published May 15th, 2025 ·

OpenAI’s recent announcement that its nonprofit would “retain control” of its for-profit business sounds reassuring. But this seemingly major concession, celebrated by so many, is in itself largely meaningless.

Litigator Tyler Whitmer is a coauthor of a newly published letter that describes this attempted sleight of hand and directs regulators on how to stop it.

As Tyler explains, the plan both before and after this announcement has been to convert OpenAI into a Delaware public benefit corporation (PBC) — and this alone will dramatically weaken the nonprofit’s ability to direct the business in pursuit of its charitable purpose: ensuring AGI is safe and “benefits all of humanity.”

Right now, the nonprofit directly controls the business. But were OpenAI to become a PBC, the nonprofit, rather than having its “hand on the lever,” would merely contribute to the decision of who does.

Why does this matter? Today, if OpenAI’s commercial arm were about to release an unhinged AI model that might make money but be bad for humanity, the nonprofit could directly intervene to stop it. In the proposed new structure, it likely couldn’t do much at all.

But it’s even worse than that: even if the nonprofit could select the PBC’s directors, those directors would have fundamentally different legal obligations from those of the nonprofit. A PBC director must balance public benefit with the interests of profit-driven shareholders — by default, they cannot legally prioritise public interest over profits, even if they and the controlling shareholder that appointed them want to do so.

Continue reading →

Emergency pod: Did OpenAI give up, or is this just a new trap? (with Rose Chan Loui)

By · Published May 8th, 2025 ·

When attorneys general intervene in corporate affairs, it usually means something has gone seriously wrong. In OpenAI’s case, it appears to have forced a dramatic reversal of the company’s plans to sideline its nonprofit foundation, announced in a blog post that made headlines worldwide.

The company’s sudden announcement that its nonprofit will “retain control” credits “constructive dialogue” with the attorneys general of California and Delaware — corporate-speak for what was likely a far more consequential confrontation behind closed doors. A confrontation perhaps driven by public pressure from Nobel Prize winners, past OpenAI staff, and community organisations.

But whether this change will help depends entirely on the details of implementation — details that remain worryingly vague in the company’s announcement.

Return guest Rose Chan Loui, nonprofit law expert at UCLA, sees potential in OpenAI’s new proposal, but emphasises that “control” must be carefully defined and enforced: “The words are great, but what’s going to back that up?” Without explicitly defining the nonprofit’s authority over safety decisions, the shift could be largely cosmetic.

Why have state officials taken such an interest so far? Host Rob Wiblin notes, “OpenAI was proposing that the AGs would no longer have any say over what this super momentous company might end up doing. … It was just crazy how they were suggesting that they would take all of the existing money and then pursue a completely different purpose.”

Now that they’re in the picture, the AGs have leverage to ensure the nonprofit maintains genuine control over issues of public safety as OpenAI develops increasingly powerful AI.

Continue reading →

#216 – Ian Dunt on why governments in Britain and elsewhere can’t get anything done – and how to fix it

By · Published May 2nd, 2025 ·

When you have a system where ministers almost never understand their portfolios, civil servants change jobs every few months, and MPs don’t grasp parliamentary procedure even after decades in office — is the problem the people, or the structure they work in?

Today’s guest, political journalist Ian Dunt, studies the systemic reasons governments succeed and fail.

And in his book How Westminster Works …and Why It Doesn’t, he argues that Britain’s government dysfunction and multi-decade failure to solve its key problems stems primarily from bad incentives and bad processes. Even brilliant, well-intentioned people are set up to fail by a long list of institutional absurdities.

For instance:

  1. Ministerial appointments in complex areas like health or defence typically go to whoever can best shore up the prime minister’s support within their own party and prevent a leadership challenge, rather than people who have any experience at all with the area.
  2. On average, ministers are removed after just two years, so the few who manage to learn their brief are typically gone just as they’re becoming effective. In the middle of a housing crisis, Britain went through 25 housing ministers in 25 years.
  3. Ministers are expected to make some of their most difficult decisions by reading paper memos out of a ‘red box’ while exhausted, at home, after dinner.
  4. Tradition demands that the country be run from a cramped Georgian townhouse: 10 Downing Street. Few staff fit and teams are split across multiple floors. Meanwhile, the country’s most powerful leaders vie to control the flow of information to and from the prime minister via ‘professionalised loitering’ outside their office.
  5. Civil servants are paid too little to retain those with technical skills, who can earn several times as much in the private sector. For those who do want to stay, the only way to get promoted is to move departments — abandoning any area-specific knowledge they’ve accumulated.
  6. As a result, senior civil servants handling complex policy areas have a median time in role as low as 11 months. Turnover in the Treasury has regularly been 25% annually — comparable to a McDonald’s restaurant.
  7. MPs are chosen by local party members overwhelmingly on the basis of being ‘loyal party people,’ while the question of whether they are good at understanding or scrutinising legislation (their supposed constitutional role) simply never comes up.

Continue reading →

Serendipity, weird bets, & cold emails that actually work: Career advice from 16 former guests

By · Published April 24th, 2025

How do you navigate a career path when the future of work is uncertain? How important is mentorship versus immediate impact? Is it better to focus on your strengths or on the world’s most pressing problems? Should you specialise deeply or develop a unique combination of skills?

From embracing failure to finding unlikely allies, we bring you 16 diverse perspectives from past guests who’ve found unconventional paths to impact and helped others do the same.

You’ll hear from:

  • Michael Webb on using AI as a career advisor and the human skills AI can’t replace (from episode #161)
  • Holden Karnofsky on kicking ass in whatever you do, and which weird ideas are worth betting on (#109, #110, and #158)
  • Chris Olah on how intersections of particular skills can be a wildly valuable niche (#108)
  • Michelle Hutchinson on understanding what truly motivates you (#75)
  • Benjamin Todd on how to make tough career decisions and deal with rejection (#71 and 80k After Hours)
  • Jeff Sebo on what improv comedy teaches us about doing good in the world (#173)
  • Spencer Greenberg on recognising toxic people who could derail your career (#183)
  • Dean Spears on embracing randomness and serendipity (#186)
  • Karen Levy on finding yourself through travel (#124)
  • Leah Garcés on finding common ground with unlikely allies (#99)
  • Hannah Ritchie on being selective about whose advice you follow (#160)
  • Alex Lawsen on getting good mentorship (80k After Hours)
  • Pardis Sabeti on prioritising physical health (#104)
  • Sarah Eustis-Guthrie on knowing when to pivot from your current path (#207)
  • Danny Hernandez on setting triggers for career decisions (#78)
  • Varsha Venugopal on embracing uncomfortable situations (#113)

Continue reading →

#215 – Tom Davidson on how AI-enabled coups could allow a tiny group to seize power

By · Published April 16th, 2025 ·

Throughout history, technological revolutions have fundamentally shifted the balance of power in society. The Industrial Revolution created conditions where democracies could dominate for the first time — as nations needed educated, informed, and empowered citizens to deploy advanced technologies and remain competitive.

Unfortunately there’s every reason to think artificial general intelligence (AGI) will reverse that trend.

In a new paper published today, Tom Davidson — senior research fellow at the Forethought Centre for AI Strategy — argues that advanced AI systems will enable unprecedented power grabs by tiny groups of people, primarily by removing the need for other human beings to participate.

When a country’s leaders no longer need citizens for economic production, or to serve in the military, there’s much less need to share power with them. “Over the broad span of history, democracy is more the exception than the rule,” Tom points out. “With AI, it will no longer be important to a country’s competitiveness to have an empowered and healthy citizenship.”

Citizens in established democracies are not typically that concerned about coups. We doubt anyone will try, and if they do, we expect human soldiers to refuse to join in. Unfortunately, the AI-controlled military systems of the future will lack those inhibitions. As Tom lays out, “Human armies today are very reluctant to fire on their civilians. If we get instruction-following AIs, then those military systems will just fire.”

Why would AI systems follow the instructions of a would-be tyrant? One answer is that, as militaries worldwide race to incorporate AI to remain competitive, they risk leaving the door open for exploitation by malicious actors in a few ways:

  1. AI systems could be programmed to simply follow orders from the top of the chain of command, without any checks on that power — potentially handing total power indefinitely to any leader willing to abuse that authority.
  2. Systems could contain “secret loyalties” inserted during development that activate at critical moments, as demonstrated in Anthropic’s recent paper on “sleeper agents”.
  3. Superior cyber capabilities could enable small groups to hack into and take full control of AI-operated military infrastructure.

Continue reading →

Guilt, imposter syndrome & doing good: 16 past guests share their mental health journeys

By · Published April 11th, 2025

What happens when your desire to do good starts to undermine your own wellbeing?

Over the years, we’ve heard from therapists, charity directors, researchers, psychologists, and career advisors — all wrestling with how to do good without falling apart. Today’s episode brings together insights from 16 past guests on the emotional and psychological costs of pursuing a high-impact career to improve the world — and how to best navigate the all-too-common guilt, burnout, perfectionism, and imposter syndrome along the way.

You’ll hear from:

  • 80,000 Hours’ former CEO on managing anxiety, self-doubt, and a chronic sense of falling short (from episode #100)
  • Randy Nesse on why we evolved to be anxious and depressed (episode #179)
  • Hannah Boettcher on how ‘optimisation framing’ can quietly distort our sense of self-worth (from our 80k After Hours feed)
  • Luisa Rodriguez on grieving the gap between who you are and who you wish you were (from our 80k After Hours feed)
  • Cameron Meyer Shorb on how guilt and shame became his biggest source of suffering — and what helped (episode #210)
  • Tim LeBon on the trap of moral perfectionism, and why we should strive for excellence instead (episode #149)
  • Cal Newport on why we need to make time to be alone with our thoughts (episode #106)
  • Michelle Hutchinson and Habiba Islam on when to prioritise wellbeing over impact (episode #122)
  • Sarah Eustis-Guthrie on the emotional weight of founding a charity (episode #207)
  • Hannah Ritchie on feeling like an imposter, even after writing a book and giving a TED Talk (episode #160)
  • Will MacAskill on why he’s five to 10 times happier than he used to be after learning to work in a way that’s genuinely sustainable (episode #130)
  • Ajeya Cotra on handling the pressure of high-stakes research (episode #90)
  • Christian Ruhl on pursuing a high-impact career while managing a stutter (from our 80k After Hours feed)
  • Leah Garcés on insisting on self-care when witnessing trauma regularly (episode #99)
  • Kelsey Piper on recognising that you’re not alone in your struggles (episode #53)

Continue reading →