-
Their words
They weren't infallible oracles, but they weren't blindly casting about either.
Holden Karnofsky
Co-founded GiveWell and Open Philanthropy (now Coefficient Giving), which he led until 2023; member of technical staff at Anthropic from January 2025, as of 2026. Wrote Cold Takes, on the most important century.
Holden Karnofsky did not write this page. ppll compiled it from their own words, each linked to the source. Is this you? · Report a mistake
What they believe
-
The track record of thoughtful people predicting the long-run future is mediocre rather than hopeless, which is enough to take such predictions seriously.
They weren't infallible oracles, but they weren't blindly casting about either.
cold-takes.comSaid 30 Jun 2022This on korrents
-
Letting one calculation take over a giving decision is disturbing, and there is still a strong case for it if you want your ethics to be principled and about other people.
These ideas can be disturbing and off-putting, but I think there is also a strong case for them, for those who wish their ethics to be principled and focused on the interests of others.
cold-takes.comSaid 15 Feb 2022This on korrents
The bold line is korrents’ wording; the quote is theirs. These 2: what they wrote before what they said aloud, one per source, newest first.
Feed
As its own page →Hiding
30 June 2022
15 February 2022
-
Their words
These ideas can be disturbing and off-putting, but I think there is also a strong case for them, for those who wish their ethics to be principled and focused on the interests of others.
2 February 2022
From one piece Future-proof ethics 4 beliefs · cold-takes.com
-
korrents.com
Any harm can in principle be outweighed by a small enough benefit delivered to a large enough number of people.Their words
In theory, any harm can be outweighed by something that benefits a large enough number of persons, even if it benefits them in a minor way.
-
Their words
Combining these three pillars yields a number of unusual, even uncomfortable views about ethics. I feel this discomfort and don't unreservedly endorse this approach to ethics.
-
Their words
Indeed, I think some of the best opportunities to do good in the world come from working on issues that aren't yet widely recognized as huge moral issues of our time.
+ 1 more
-
korrents.com
Ethics based on common sense and the conventions of the time has a horrible track record.Their words
Ethics based on "common sense" seems to have a horrible track record.
20 January 2022
-
Dislikedrcmnd.app
The Dawn of Everything: A New History of HumanityTheir words
All of the reviews - plus this Twitter thread by Brad DeLong - echoed the theme that the book is thinly cited and that many of its claims seem overstated or unsupported. That makes it a tough sell for me, as I’m not excited to read 500 pages of claims that aren’t particularly likely to hold up once I dig in and check them out.
23 November 2021
From one piece Minimal-trust investigations 2 beliefs · cold-takes.com
-
Their words
Minimal-trust investigation is probably the single activity that's been most formative for the way I think.
-
korrents.com
Almost everything anyone believes rests on trusting other people, and there is no alternative to that.Their words
I think it's completely reasonable to form the vast majority of one's beliefs based on trust like this. I don't really think there's any alternative.
2 September 2021
-
Recommendsrcmnd.app
octopus plugTheir words
I recommend traveling with an octopus plug so you never have to fight over an airport charger (instead, you're a hero!)
-
Recommendsrcmnd.app
LastPassTheir words
I recommend LastPass and maximal use of two-factor authentication.
18 August 2011
From one piece Why we can’t take expected value estimates literally (even when they’re unbiased) 7 beliefs · blog.givewell.org
-
Their words
An ungrounded estimate making an extravagant claim ought to be more or less discarded in the face of the “prior distribution” of life experience.
-
korrents.com
The more an argument asks you to do, the more evidence you should require before doing it.Their words
The more action is asked of me, the more evidence I require.
-
Their words
Yet it seems that when people are valuing one action far above others, based on thin information, this is the time when skeptical inquiry is needed most.
+ 4 more
-
Their words
In such a world, it seems that nearly all altruists would put nearly all of their resources toward helping people they knew little about, rather than helping themselves, their families and their communities. I believe that the world would be worse off if people behaved in this way, or at least if they took it to an extreme.
-
Their words
EEV doesn’t seem to allow rewarding charities for transparency or penalizing them for opacity: it simply recommends giving to the charity with the highest estimated expected value, regardless of how well-grounded the estimate is.
-
Their words
And we generally prefer to give where we have strong evidence that donations can do a lot of good rather than where we have weak evidence that donations can do far more good
-
Their words
I feel that any giving approach that relies only on estimated expected-value – and does not incorporate preferences for better-grounded estimates over shakier estimates – is flawed.
Nothing matches.
Beliefs
Korrents What they believe 16 beliefs — each backed by an exact quote.
Each is a — compiled by korrents.com, not by them: the one-line wordings are korrents', the quotes are theirs.
Recent
The track record of thoughtful people predicting the long-run future is mediocre rather than hopeless, which is enough to take such predictions seriously.
They weren't infallible oracles, but they weren't blindly casting about either.
The Track Record of Futurists Seems ... Fine Said 30 Jun 2022
Letting one calculation take over a giving decision is disturbing, and there is still a strong case for it if you want your ethics to be principled and about other people.
These ideas can be disturbing and off-putting, but I think there is also a strong case for them, for those who wish their ethics to be principled and focused on the interests of others.
Defending One-Dimensional Ethics Said 15 Feb 2022
Ethics based on common sense and the conventions of the time has a horrible track record.
Ethics based on "common sense" seems to have a horrible track record.
Future-proof ethics Said 2 Feb 2022
Show 13 more
The best opportunities to do good are the ones almost nobody is paying attention to.
Indeed, I think some of the best opportunities to do good in the world come from working on issues that aren't yet widely recognized as huge moral issues of our time.
Future-proof ethics Said 2 Feb 2022
Counting every being that can suffer, and applying consistent moral weights, yields conclusions its own defenders find uncomfortable and cannot fully endorse.
Combining these three pillars yields a number of unusual, even uncomfortable views about ethics. I feel this discomfort and don't unreservedly endorse this approach to ethics.
Future-proof ethics Said 2 Feb 2022
Any harm can in principle be outweighed by a small enough benefit delivered to a large enough number of people.
In theory, any harm can be outweighed by something that benefits a large enough number of persons, even if it benefits them in a minor way.
Future-proof ethics Said 2 Feb 2022
Almost everything anyone believes rests on trusting other people, and there is no alternative to that.
I think it's completely reasonable to form the vast majority of one's beliefs based on trust like this. I don't really think there's any alternative.
Minimal-trust investigations Said 23 Nov 2021
Occasionally suspending your trust in everyone and digging into one question as deeply as you can is the single most formative thing you can do for how you think.
Minimal-trust investigation is probably the single activity that's been most formative for the way I think.
Minimal-trust investigations Said 23 Nov 2021
A giving approach that ranks options only by estimated expected value, with no preference for better-grounded estimates, is flawed.
I feel that any giving approach that relies only on estimated expected-value – and does not incorporate preferences for better-grounded estimates over shakier estimates – is flawed.
Why we can’t take expected value estimates literally (even when they’re unbiased) Said 18 Aug 2011
Give where there is strong evidence that donations do a lot of good, rather than where weak evidence suggests they might do far more.
And we generally prefer to give where we have strong evidence that donations can do a lot of good rather than where we have weak evidence that donations can do far more good
Why we can’t take expected value estimates literally (even when they’re unbiased) Said 18 Aug 2011
Ranking charities by their estimated expected value alone removes any reward for being transparent about how they actually work.
EEV doesn’t seem to allow rewarding charities for transparency or penalizing them for opacity: it simply recommends giving to the charity with the highest estimated expected value, regardless of how well-grounded the estimate is.
Why we can’t take expected value estimates literally (even when they’re unbiased) Said 18 Aug 2011
A world where altruists followed expected-value estimates would be one where nearly all of them helped distant strangers instead of the people around them, and that world would be worse.
In such a world, it seems that nearly all altruists would put nearly all of their resources toward helping people they knew little about, rather than helping themselves, their families and their communities. I believe that the world would be worse off if people behaved in this way, or at least if they took it to an extreme.
Why we can’t take expected value estimates literally (even when they’re unbiased) Said 18 Aug 2011
The moment one cause looks far better than every other on thin information is exactly the moment it most needs sceptical investigation.
Yet it seems that when people are valuing one action far above others, based on thin information, this is the time when skeptical inquiry is needed most.
Why we can’t take expected value estimates literally (even when they’re unbiased) Said 18 Aug 2011
The more an argument asks you to do, the more evidence you should require before doing it.
The more action is asked of me, the more evidence I require.
Why we can’t take expected value estimates literally (even when they’re unbiased) Said 18 Aug 2011
An ungrounded estimate that promises an enormous payoff should be discarded rather than discounted, because the size of the claim is itself the reason to distrust it.
An ungrounded estimate making an extravagant claim ought to be more or less discarded in the face of the “prior distribution” of life experience.
Why we can’t take expected value estimates literally (even when they’re unbiased) Said 18 Aug 2011
The deeper anyone digs into a charity's cost-effectiveness estimate, the more unwarranted optimism they find, so the right prior on giving is a sceptical one.
Giving well seems conceptually quite difficult to me, and it’s been my experience over time that the more we dig on a cost-effectiveness estimate, the more unwarranted optimism we uncover.
Why we can’t take expected value estimates literally (even when they’re unbiased) Said 18 Aug 2011
Beliefs others hold too
The best opportunities to do good are the ones almost nobody is paying attention to. 2 hold this
Indeed, I think some of the best opportunities to do good in the world come from working on issues that aren't yet widely recognized as huge moral issues of our time.
Future-proof ethics Said 2 Feb 2022
What is a korrent?
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said. The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
Recommends rcmnd
rcmnd What they recommend 3 things — each backed by an exact quote.
Compiled by rcmnd.app, not by them: the quotes are theirs, and each links to the post it was copied from.
Recent
Disliked The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity
All of the reviews - plus this Twitter thread by Brad DeLong - echoed the theme that the book is thinly cited and that many of its claims seem overstated or unsupported. That makes it a tough sell for me, as I’m not excited to read 500 pages of claims that aren’t particularly likely to hold up once I dig in and check them out.
cold-takes.com 20 Jan 2022
What others say about The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity →
Recommends LastPass
I recommend LastPass and maximal use of two-factor authentication.
cold-takes.com 2 Sept 2021
Recommends octopus plug
I recommend traveling with an octopus plug so you never have to fight over an airport charger (instead, you're a hero!)
cold-takes.com 2 Sept 2021
Where they publish
Blog Cold Takes His blog on transformative AI, philanthropy and reasoning. Has a feed.
Link verified 20 Sept 2026.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter, especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked article and a belief on korrents.com are left in their original language.