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 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.