What you would do to decrease the uncertainty about interspecies comparisons of expectedhedonistic welfare as much as possible with 1 k, 10 k, 100 k, 1 M, and 10 M$? The picks should account not only for the outcomes of the research which was directly funded, but also for any additional research that is done to decrease the uncertainty further (supported by other funds).
I think Ambitious Impact (AIM), Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE), and the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF) use the welfare ranges initially presented by Rethink Priorities (RP), or the ones in Bobās book as if they are within a factor of 10 of the right estimates (such that these could 10 % to 10 times as large). However, I believe the differences could be much larger. For example, the estimate in Bobās book for the welfare range of shrimps is 8.0 % that of humans, but I would say it would be quite reasonable for someone to have a best guess of 10^-6, the ratio between the number of neurons of shrimps and humans.
Thanks for sharing!
What you would do to decrease the uncertainty about interspecies comparisons of expected hedonistic welfare as much as possible with 1 k, 10 k, 100 k, 1 M, and 10 M$? The picks should account not only for the outcomes of the research which was directly funded, but also for any additional research that is done to decrease the uncertainty further (supported by other funds).
I think Ambitious Impact (AIM), Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE), and the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF) use the welfare ranges initially presented by Rethink Priorities (RP), or the ones in Bobās book as if they are within a factor of 10 of the right estimates (such that these could 10 % to 10 times as large). However, I believe the differences could be much larger. For example, the estimate in Bobās book for the welfare range of shrimps is 8.0 % that of humans, but I would say it would be quite reasonable for someone to have a best guess of 10^-6, the ratio between the number of neurons of shrimps and humans.