Hi Rocky and Tom. Great post. I share your concerns.
Our worry is not that welfare tech is a bad idea (some of it is likely excellent). Rather, the worry is that it has several traits that make it vulnerable to becoming a bubble. It has a clean theory of change, no obvious need for mass public persuasion, compatibility with short AI timelines, appeal to tech-oriented funders and builders, and the ability to be framed as a silver bullet: build the tool, deploy the tool, reduce suffering at scale.
I estimated SWP’s stunning work is 383 and 139 times as cost-effective as broiler welfare and layer cage-free corporate campaigns (neglecting effectson non-target animals). However, I think the estimates depend way more on welfare comparisons across species than the probability of the stunning work benefiting and harming shrimps.
Say the cost-effectiveness of SWP’s stunning work is proportional to the difference between the probability of benefiting and harming shrimps, and that shrimps are either benefited or harmed. Suppose the probability of benefiting shrimps decreases from 75 % to 60 %, which means the probability of harming shrimps increases from 25 % to 40 %. The cost-effectiveness would become 40 % (= (0.6 − 0.4)/(0.75 − 0.25)) as large.
My estimate for the cost-effectiveness of SWP’s stunning work is proportional to the value of 1 shrimp-QALY. I assumed this to be 9.34 % (= 0.031/0.332) of the value of 1 chicken-QALY. Suppose the value of 1 anima-QALY is instead proportional to the individual number of neurons, which I consider plausible. I calculate shrimps have 0.0389 % as many neurons as chickens. So the cost-effectiveness would become 0.416 % (= 3.89*10^-4/0.0934) as large.
Hi Rocky and Tom. Great post. I share your concerns.
I very much agree.
I estimated SWP’s stunning work is 383 and 139 times as cost-effective as broiler welfare and layer cage-free corporate campaigns (neglecting effects on non-target animals). However, I think the estimates depend way more on welfare comparisons across species than the probability of the stunning work benefiting and harming shrimps.
Say the cost-effectiveness of SWP’s stunning work is proportional to the difference between the probability of benefiting and harming shrimps, and that shrimps are either benefited or harmed. Suppose the probability of benefiting shrimps decreases from 75 % to 60 %, which means the probability of harming shrimps increases from 25 % to 40 %. The cost-effectiveness would become 40 % (= (0.6 − 0.4)/(0.75 − 0.25)) as large.
My estimate for the cost-effectiveness of SWP’s stunning work is proportional to the value of 1 shrimp-QALY. I assumed this to be 9.34 % (= 0.031/0.332) of the value of 1 chicken-QALY. Suppose the value of 1 anima-QALY is instead proportional to the individual number of neurons, which I consider plausible. I calculate shrimps have 0.0389 % as many neurons as chickens. So the cost-effectiveness would become 0.416 % (= 3.89*10^-4/0.0934) as large.
Thanks for the clarification!
I added the word “potentially” to the relevant section to make it more accurate.