I wonder how things would change if you had short AI timelines or otherwise assumed the impacts would be cut off after 5 or 10 years, say.
Iâd imagine HIPF would get adjusted downward a lot, if and because these are policy interventions targeting hypertension, diabetes (like you mention) and other chronic lifestyle diseases. Not only would policy changes take time to pass and be implemented, Iâd guess their effects on chronic lifestyle diseases would be fairly small for several years after implementation, because those diseases take time to reverse or prevent.
GiveWell top charities would get adjusted downwards because many of the estimated years of life saved could actually be lost to AI, or have radically different effects on wild animals. Instead of 50-70 years, we only get 5-10, say.
Broiler welfare reforms, especially the breed component which drives the wild animal effects here, tend to have phase-in periods of multiple years, and welfare reforms in general are often estimated to last several years. We might only have a few years of effects, if any.
I estimate donating to HIPF from CEARCH is 12 times as cost-effective as GiveWellâs top charities. This is the mean between the lower and upper bound of 9 and 15 mentioned by Joel Tan, CEARCHâs founder and managing director, on 28 May 2025. Joel estimated the cost-effectiveness accounting only for effects on humans, as a fraction of that of GiveWellâs top charities, of âadvocacy for top sodium control policies to control hypertensionâ to be31, that of âadvocacy for sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs] taxes to control diabetes mellitus type 2â to be55, and that of donating to Giving What We Can (GWWC) in 2025 to be 13.
Is the cost-effectiveness based on increases in life expectancies only, or also improvements in quality of life? Increases in life expectancy would be the main drivers for effects on animals, and quality of life changes would probably have minimal effects on animals.
I wonder how things would change if you had short AI timelines or otherwise assumed the impacts would be cut off after 5 or 10 years, say.
I like Ege Erdilâs median time of 20 years until full automation of remote work, and I would not neglect impact after this. However, I feel like I should think more about this, and, for the reasons below, I would strongly update towards donating to SWP neglecting impact after 5 or 10 years.
From Vetted Causesâ evaluation of SWP, âSWP also informed us that it typically takes 6 to 8 months for SWP to distribute a stunner and have it operational once an agreement has been signedâ. Assuming 0.583 years (= (6 + 8)/â2/â12) from agreements to impact, and 1 year from donations to agreements, there would be 1.58 years (= 0.583 + 1) from donations to impact. As a result, there would be 3.42 (= 5 â 1.58) and 8.42 years (= 10 â 1.58) of impact neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years. I assumed â10 yearsâ of impact to estimate the past cost-effectiveness of HSI. Supposing the current marginal cost-effectiveness is equal to the past one including all years of impact, the current marginal cost-effectiveness of HSI neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years would be 34.2 % (= 3.42/â10) and 84.2 % (= 8.42/â10) of the past cost-effectiveness of HSI.
I would become much more pessimistic about my invertebrate welfare recommendations besides SWP neglecting impact after 5 or 10 years. They all involve research, so I guess they would take longer than HSIâs 1.58 years from donations to impact.
I guess current donations to HIPF will support advocacy for taxing SSBs, as Joel and 5 other impact-focussed donors granted 63 k$ to that. From CEARCHâs cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of that, âcounterfactual introduction only has impact in year 5â, after 4 years. The maximum benefits of the 5th, and 5th to 10th years are 0.637 % (= 1.07/â168), and 3.88 % (= 6.52/â168) of the total maximum benefits. As a result, neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years, I would estimate donating to HIPF to be 0.637 % and 3.88 % as cost-effective, which would be 1.86 % (= 0.00637/â0.342) and 4.61 % (= 0.0388/â0.842) as cost-effective as donating to HSI neglecting the impact of this after 5 and 10 years.
Is the cost-effectiveness based on increases in life expectancies only, or also improvements in quality of life? Increases in life expectancy would be the main drivers for effects on animals, and quality of life changes would probably have minimal effects on animals.
The cost-effectiveness estimates from CEARCH, and Joelâs guess account for effects on mortality, morbidity, and consumption. I have now clarified the following. âI assume donating to HIPF from CEARCH increases human-years 12 times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities, as I estimate the cost-effectiveness of donating to HIPF accounting only for [mortality, morbidity, and economic effects on] humans is 12 times that of GiveWellâs top charitiesâ. I have also updated my estimate of the increase in the living time of humans caused by GiveWellâs top charities. âI estimate GiveWellâs top charities increase the living time of humans by 0.0157 human-year/â$, which is the ratio between the period life expectancy at birth in low income countries in 2023 of 64.9 human-year/âlife, and the mean cost of saving a life donating to those charities in 2021 to 2023 of4.13 k$/âlifeâ. Previously, I was assuming a period healthy life expectancy at birth of 51 years, as, according to Open Philanthropy (OP), âGiveWell uses moral weights for child deaths that would be consistent with assuming 51 years of foregone life in the DALY framework (though that is not how they reach the conclusion)â.
Thanks, Michael. I agree that would further decrease the impact of interventions saving children if impact after 5 or 10 years dropped to 0. On the other hand, I think it is super unlikely that the agricultural land per capita in low income countries becomes negligible in 5 or 10 years even conditional on remote work being fully automated then. So I would say donating to GiveWellâs top charities is still a good way of increasing agricultural land under short AI timelines. At the same time, I believe buying beef is more robust against short AI timelines.I guess the resulting increase in agricultural land happens over a few years, such that impact dropping to 0 after 5 or 10 years does not affect its cost-effectiveness.
I wonder how things would change if you had short AI timelines or otherwise assumed the impacts would be cut off after 5 or 10 years, say.
Iâd imagine HIPF would get adjusted downward a lot, if and because these are policy interventions targeting hypertension, diabetes (like you mention) and other chronic lifestyle diseases. Not only would policy changes take time to pass and be implemented, Iâd guess their effects on chronic lifestyle diseases would be fairly small for several years after implementation, because those diseases take time to reverse or prevent.
GiveWell top charities would get adjusted downwards because many of the estimated years of life saved could actually be lost to AI, or have radically different effects on wild animals. Instead of 50-70 years, we only get 5-10, say.
Broiler welfare reforms, especially the breed component which drives the wild animal effects here, tend to have phase-in periods of multiple years, and welfare reforms in general are often estimated to last several years. We might only have a few years of effects, if any.
Is the cost-effectiveness based on increases in life expectancies only, or also improvements in quality of life? Increases in life expectancy would be the main drivers for effects on animals, and quality of life changes would probably have minimal effects on animals.
Thanks for the great points, @MichaelStJules!
I like Ege Erdilâs median time of 20 years until full automation of remote work, and I would not neglect impact after this. However, I feel like I should think more about this, and, for the reasons below, I would strongly update towards donating to SWP neglecting impact after 5 or 10 years.
From Vetted Causesâ evaluation of SWP, âSWP also informed us that it typically takes 6 to 8 months for SWP to distribute a stunner and have it operational once an agreement has been signedâ. Assuming 0.583 years (= (6 + 8)/â2/â12) from agreements to impact, and 1 year from donations to agreements, there would be 1.58 years (= 0.583 + 1) from donations to impact. As a result, there would be 3.42 (= 5 â 1.58) and 8.42 years (= 10 â 1.58) of impact neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years. I assumed â10 yearsâ of impact to estimate the past cost-effectiveness of HSI. Supposing the current marginal cost-effectiveness is equal to the past one including all years of impact, the current marginal cost-effectiveness of HSI neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years would be 34.2 % (= 3.42/â10) and 84.2 % (= 8.42/â10) of the past cost-effectiveness of HSI.
I would become much more pessimistic about my invertebrate welfare recommendations besides SWP neglecting impact after 5 or 10 years. They all involve research, so I guess they would take longer than HSIâs 1.58 years from donations to impact.
I guess current donations to HIPF will support advocacy for taxing SSBs, as Joel and 5 other impact-focussed donors granted 63 k$ to that. From CEARCHâs cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of that, âcounterfactual introduction only has impact in year 5â, after 4 years. The maximum benefits of the 5th, and 5th to 10th years are 0.637 % (= 1.07/â168), and 3.88 % (= 6.52/â168) of the total maximum benefits. As a result, neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years, I would estimate donating to HIPF to be 0.637 % and 3.88 % as cost-effective, which would be 1.86 % (= 0.00637/â0.342) and 4.61 % (= 0.0388/â0.842) as cost-effective as donating to HSI neglecting the impact of this after 5 and 10 years.
The cost-effectiveness estimates from CEARCH, and Joelâs guess account for effects on mortality, morbidity, and consumption. I have now clarified the following. âI assume donating to HIPF from CEARCH increases human-years 12 times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities, as I estimate the cost-effectiveness of donating to HIPF accounting only for [mortality, morbidity, and economic effects on] humans is 12 times that of GiveWellâs top charitiesâ. I have also updated my estimate of the increase in the living time of humans caused by GiveWellâs top charities. âI estimate GiveWellâs top charities increase the living time of humans by 0.0157 human-year/â$, which is the ratio between the period life expectancy at birth in low income countries in 2023 of 64.9 human-year/âlife, and the mean cost of saving a life donating to those charities in 2021 to 2023 of 4.13 k$/âlifeâ. Previously, I was assuming a period healthy life expectancy at birth of 51 years, as, according to Open Philanthropy (OP), âGiveWell uses moral weights for child deaths that would be consistent with assuming 51 years of foregone life in the DALY framework (though that is not how they reach the conclusion)â.
Also, the primary beneficiaries of GiveWell-recommended charities are mostly infants and children, who eat less.
Thanks, Michael. I agree that would further decrease the impact of interventions saving children if impact after 5 or 10 years dropped to 0. On the other hand, I think it is super unlikely that the agricultural land per capita in low income countries becomes negligible in 5 or 10 years even conditional on remote work being fully automated then. So I would say donating to GiveWellâs top charities is still a good way of increasing agricultural land under short AI timelines. At the same time, I believe buying beef is more robust against short AI timelines.I guess the resulting increase in agricultural land happens over a few years, such that impact dropping to 0 after 5 or 10 years does not affect its cost-effectiveness.