If you’d like to read some arguments, I argue here that the most cost-effective neartermist interventions are in animal welfare. If you lean longtermist, I argue here that under many EAs’ risk aversion, marginal animal welfare donations still make more sense than marginal AI safety funding. If you’re a pure total utilitarian, I would still argue that direct efforts to improve the future for all sentient beings (future-oriented digital minds/​animal welfare work) are plausibly higher EV even than x-risk reduction.
If you’d like to read some arguments, I argue here that the most cost-effective neartermist interventions are in animal welfare. If you lean longtermist, I argue here that under many EAs’ risk aversion, marginal animal welfare donations still make more sense than marginal AI safety funding. If you’re a pure total utilitarian, I would still argue that direct efforts to improve the future for all sentient beings (future-oriented digital minds/​animal welfare work) are plausibly higher EV even than x-risk reduction.
(I have already read these posts and much prefer them over the post we’re commenting on here.)
I also recommend engaging with RP’s new cross-cause work here. Curious to hear takes.