Evaluating more fine-grained causes, respondents estimated that 26.8% should go to work focused on AI, 15.7% to Global health, 14.7% to Farm animal welfare, 10.2% to building EA and related communities, and 8.2% to Biosecurity (in addition to smaller percentages to many other causes).
So the respondents would like to see 1.82 (= 0.268/0.147) and 1.07 (= 0.157/0.147) times as much resources going into AI and global health as into farm animal welfare. These numbers imply it is good to move donations from global health to farm animal welfare (which I agreewith), and from this to AI (which I disagree with). Of the amount granted by Open Philanthropy in 2024, I estimate:
16.0 % went to farm animal welfare:
2.59 % to “Alternatives to Animal Products”.
2.70 % to “Broiler Chicken Welfare”.
0.203 % to “Cage-Free Reforms”.
10.5 % to “Farm Animal Welfare”.
0.0136 % to “Fish Welfare”.
46.6 % went to global health, 2.91 (= 0.466/0.160) times as much as to farm animal welfare (significantly more than 1.07 times as much):
10.3 % to “GiveWell-Recommended Charities”.
1.83 % to “Global Aid Policy”.
0.172 % to “Global Health & Development”.
0.672 % to “Global Health & Wellbeing”.
12.2% to “Global Health R&D”.
11.1 % to “Global Public Health Policy”.
5.25 % to “Human Health and Wellbeing”.
4.93 % to “Scientific Research”.
0.0926 % to “South Asian Air Quality”.
17.8 % went to “Potential Risks from Advanced AI”, 1.11 (= 0.178/0.160) times as much as to farm animal welfare (significantly less than 1.82 times as much). There are other focus areas which cover AI, but that is the major one, so the takeaway will remain the same.
So the respondents would like to see 1.82 (= 0.268/0.147) and 1.07 (= 0.157/0.147) times as much resources going into AI and global health as into farm animal welfare. These numbers imply it is good to move donations from global health to farm animal welfare (which I agree with), and from this to AI (which I disagree with). Of the amount granted by Open Philanthropy in 2024, I estimate:
16.0 % went to farm animal welfare:
2.59 % to “Alternatives to Animal Products”.
2.70 % to “Broiler Chicken Welfare”.
0.203 % to “Cage-Free Reforms”.
10.5 % to “Farm Animal Welfare”.
0.0136 % to “Fish Welfare”.
46.6 % went to global health, 2.91 (= 0.466/0.160) times as much as to farm animal welfare (significantly more than 1.07 times as much):
10.3 % to “GiveWell-Recommended Charities”.
1.83 % to “Global Aid Policy”.
0.172 % to “Global Health & Development”.
0.672 % to “Global Health & Wellbeing”.
12.2% to “Global Health R&D”.
11.1 % to “Global Public Health Policy”.
5.25 % to “Human Health and Wellbeing”.
4.93 % to “Scientific Research”.
0.0926 % to “South Asian Air Quality”.
17.8 % went to “Potential Risks from Advanced AI”, 1.11 (= 0.178/0.160) times as much as to farm animal welfare (significantly less than 1.82 times as much). There are other focus areas which cover AI, but that is the major one, so the takeaway will remain the same.