(We also expect to place some bets on non-AI opportunities that are unusually strong.)
Are you open to funding research on the sentience of nematodes? This is one of the âFour Investigation Prioritiesâ mentioned in section 13.4 of chapter 13 of the book The Edge of Sentience by Jonathan Birch.
How about funding research on the time trade-offs between the pains defined by the Welfare Footprint Institute (WFI) by surveying people who have recently experienced excruciating pain? I think people suffering from cluster headaches would be good candidates. Ambitious Impact (AIM) currently estimates suffering-adjusted days (SADs) assuming that excruciating pain is 48.0 (= 11.7/â0.244) times as intense as hurtful pain (you can ask Vicky Cox for the sheet), which I believe is very off. It implies 16 h of âawareness of Pain is likely to be present most of the timeâ (hurtful pain) is as bad as 20.0 min (= 16â48.0*60) of âsevere burning in large areas of the body, dismemberment, or extreme tortureâ (excruciating pain). Here is a thread where I discussed AIMâs pain intensities with the person responsible for their last iteration.
How about funding research on welfare comparisons across species? In Bob Fischerâs book about comparing welfare across species, the tentative sentience-adjusted welfare range of shrimps is 8.0 % of that of humans. However, if the sentience-adjusted welfare range is proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponentâ, and âexponentâ can range from 0 to 2, which I consider reasonable, the sentience-adjusted welfare range of shrimp can range from 10^-12 (= (10^-6)^2) to 1 times that of humans.
I am very open to funding research on the sentience of nematodes.
Regarding intensities of pain, Iâm open to it, but would be surprised.
Welfare comparisons across species are also in scope. I consider Bob Fischer to be one of our best people who has a strong hunch for making his research useful, and as much as is practicable/âpossible, he should have free rein to do the work he finds most valauble. This talk in 2023 is responsible for a lot of my thinking around smaller animals and very much cemented the idea that helping non-human animals was going to be far more cost-effective.
I am very open to funding research on the sentience of nematodes.
Great.
Regarding intensities of pain, Iâm open to it, but would be surprised.
Why would you be surprised? I think the uncertainty of the intensity of excruciating pain is a major driver of the uncertainty of the cost-effectiveness of humane slaughter interventions, like advocating for electrically stunning farmed shrimps as done by the Shrimp Welfare Projectâs (SWPâs) Humane Slaughter Initiative (HSI).
Welfare comparisons across species are also in scope. I consider Bob Fischer to be one of our best people who has a strong hunch for making his research useful, and as much as is practicable/âpossible, he should have free rein to do the work he finds most valauble.
I would agree Bob is among the best people to lead research on welfare comparisons across species.
I really liked that talk from Bob. However, I have very little idea about whether interventions targeting invertebrates increase the welfare of their target beneficiaries more or less cost-effectively than ones targeting humans. For individual welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponentâ, and âexponentâ from 0 to 2, which covers the best guesses that I consider reasonable, I estimatethat HSI has increased the welfare of shrimps 1.68*10^-6 to 1.68 M times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities increase the welfare of humans.
Hi Marcus.
Are you open to funding research on the sentience of nematodes? This is one of the âFour Investigation Prioritiesâ mentioned in section 13.4 of chapter 13 of the book The Edge of Sentience by Jonathan Birch.
How about funding research on the time trade-offs between the pains defined by the Welfare Footprint Institute (WFI) by surveying people who have recently experienced excruciating pain? I think people suffering from cluster headaches would be good candidates. Ambitious Impact (AIM) currently estimates suffering-adjusted days (SADs) assuming that excruciating pain is 48.0 (= 11.7/â0.244) times as intense as hurtful pain (you can ask Vicky Cox for the sheet), which I believe is very off. It implies 16 h of âawareness of Pain is likely to be present most of the timeâ (hurtful pain) is as bad as 20.0 min (= 16â48.0*60) of âsevere burning in large areas of the body, dismemberment, or extreme tortureâ (excruciating pain). Here is a thread where I discussed AIMâs pain intensities with the person responsible for their last iteration.
How about funding research on welfare comparisons across species? In Bob Fischerâs book about comparing welfare across species, the tentative sentience-adjusted welfare range of shrimps is 8.0 % of that of humans. However, if the sentience-adjusted welfare range is proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponentâ, and âexponentâ can range from 0 to 2, which I consider reasonable, the sentience-adjusted welfare range of shrimp can range from 10^-12 (= (10^-6)^2) to 1 times that of humans.
I am very open to funding research on the sentience of nematodes.
Regarding intensities of pain, Iâm open to it, but would be surprised.
Welfare comparisons across species are also in scope. I consider Bob Fischer to be one of our best people who has a strong hunch for making his research useful, and as much as is practicable/âpossible, he should have free rein to do the work he finds most valauble. This talk in 2023 is responsible for a lot of my thinking around smaller animals and very much cemented the idea that helping non-human animals was going to be far more cost-effective.
Thanks for clarifying, Marcus.
Great.
Why would you be surprised? I think the uncertainty of the intensity of excruciating pain is a major driver of the uncertainty of the cost-effectiveness of humane slaughter interventions, like advocating for electrically stunning farmed shrimps as done by the Shrimp Welfare Projectâs (SWPâs) Humane Slaughter Initiative (HSI).
I would agree Bob is among the best people to lead research on welfare comparisons across species.
I really liked that talk from Bob. However, I have very little idea about whether interventions targeting invertebrates increase the welfare of their target beneficiaries more or less cost-effectively than ones targeting humans. For individual welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponentâ, and âexponentâ from 0 to 2, which covers the best guesses that I consider reasonable, I estimate that HSI has increased the welfare of shrimps 1.68*10^-6 to 1.68 M times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities increase the welfare of humans.