In the worlds where animals have low moral weight, their GHD work is very positive. In the world where animals have high moral weight, their AW work is very positive. The portfolio approach is a way to maximize expected utility under risk aversion. This point is made here and I elaborate more in replies.
The portfolio approach should be considered across the whole world, not AIM. There are already lots of efforts to help humans, so I have a hard time seeing how the optimal global portfolio involves AIM incubating many organisations which help humans, but may easily be causing lots of harm nearterm.
I assume your argument also depends on the type of risk aversion. I think improving the conditions of farmed animals has a much lower chance of being harmful than saving human lives.
I reject risk aversion with respect to impartial welfare (although it makes all sense to be risk averse with respect to money) because it implies rejecting self-evident principles.
The portfolio approach should be considered across the whole world, not AIM. There are already lots of efforts to help humans, so I have a hard time seeing how the optimal global portfolio involves AIM incubating many organisations which help humans, but may easily be causing lots of harm nearterm.
I assume your argument also depends on the type of risk aversion. I think improving the conditions of farmed animals has a much lower chance of being harmful than saving human lives.
I reject risk aversion with respect to impartial welfare (although it makes all sense to be risk averse with respect to money) because it implies rejecting self-evident principles.