Of the 100 strategic pairings you did, how would you break down the impact / what was the outcome of the pairings?
how do you think the AI for animals group will benefit animals? E.g. what kind of concrete outcomes do you expect to see?
do you have a user survey or feedback on the relative value of the different services you provide? How do you prioritize between different initiatives?
Hey Vaidehi, thanks a lot for reading and your questions:)
1. Of the 100 strategic pairings you did, how would you break down the impact / what was the outcome of the pairings?
We have only started doing strategic connections actively in August and have a follow-up time after three months of connections, so we don’t know the outcome for the majority yet. We have a system set up that notes down the input (resource provided, short or long consultation, funding, warm introduction or others) and output (tool adopted, meaningful or impactful connection, project consolidation or extension, knowledge gained, funding/volunteering/job opportunity gained, time saved, project started, co-founder paired, other). Some of the connections we have checked on had resulted in some outcomes from the above, some had no outcome, but the data we got won’t be informative yet. It is possible that long-term the impact of these connections can change too. We are going to check in on the connections in February after the survey and report back on the data in a post.
2. how do you think the AI for animals group will benefit animals? E.g. what kind of concrete outcomes do you expect to see?
It’s hard to know at this point what concrete outcomes will arise. The most ideal would be if we were able to establish a dialogue with companies that are involved with precision livestock farming and influence them to prioritize animal welfare higher than they otherwise would have. There is usually a point in intensive farming where welfare and economic gain are opposed and we would like to be in a position to influence these tradeoff decisions. With our initiatives to have animals included in the ethics frameworks in LLM companies, we are hoping that animals will have more consideration in future applications of the LLM. One hypothetical could be if someone asked for the steps to build a highway responsibly and the LLM would be more likely to advise to find and avoid cutting through any animal migration routes. Of course, we don’t expect to be able to do this on our own. Our focus on writing about AI and animals would ideally result in others feeling motivated to work on it too so this field grows faster and we can better take advantage of this window of time where changes in AI policy are easier to make. Finally, the work we do with helping animal advocates to use AI to improve their work efficiency aims to save valuable time and money in the movement.
3. do you have a user survey or feedback on the relative value of the different services you provide? How do you prioritize between different initiatives?
We haven’t done extensive user surveys yet but we have done some user interviews (35 1:1 conversations) based around the needs of the community members and have incorporated some of their feedback into our strategy and programs. We also have continuous feedback being requested through all our channels. Initially, because we started from such a small project, we were guided mainly by the feedback on the MVP experiments we conducted (which were in turn chosen because we identified a gap we thought was worth filling). Once the MVP launched and was converted into a program, the content was largely community-driven (e.g. members requesting channels). To help us decide whether a program is worth continuing, we look at the engagement indicators such as newsletter and Slack channel views, as well as talking to community members to find out whether a service is valuable. During these conversations we sometimes find more tangible impact. We created a weighted factor model to help us choose between different programs (with Potential Impact, cost, feasibility, neglectedness and scalability as criteria). So far the highest ranking are the AI and Animals, the Slack space, resource wiki and the newsletter, with the Forum following close (largely because of the uncertainty around us being able to overcome the “cold start”). However, this model is initial, and we will be updating it based on the results of the community survey we’ll do in February. We always have new ideas, either from ourselves or suggested. We will also ask this question in our upcoming survey to see how impactful and/or valuable these programs are to the community members and if there is something else people would like to see.
Thanks for this! A few questions:
Of the 100 strategic pairings you did, how would you break down the impact / what was the outcome of the pairings?
how do you think the AI for animals group will benefit animals? E.g. what kind of concrete outcomes do you expect to see?
do you have a user survey or feedback on the relative value of the different services you provide? How do you prioritize between different initiatives?
Hey Vaidehi, thanks a lot for reading and your questions:)
1. Of the 100 strategic pairings you did, how would you break down the impact / what was the outcome of the pairings?
We have only started doing strategic connections actively in August and have a follow-up time after three months of connections, so we don’t know the outcome for the majority yet. We have a system set up that notes down the input (resource provided, short or long consultation, funding, warm introduction or others) and output (tool adopted, meaningful or impactful connection, project consolidation or extension, knowledge gained, funding/volunteering/job opportunity gained, time saved, project started, co-founder paired, other). Some of the connections we have checked on had resulted in some outcomes from the above, some had no outcome, but the data we got won’t be informative yet. It is possible that long-term the impact of these connections can change too. We are going to check in on the connections in February after the survey and report back on the data in a post.
2. how do you think the AI for animals group will benefit animals? E.g. what kind of concrete outcomes do you expect to see?
It’s hard to know at this point what concrete outcomes will arise. The most ideal would be if we were able to establish a dialogue with companies that are involved with precision livestock farming and influence them to prioritize animal welfare higher than they otherwise would have. There is usually a point in intensive farming where welfare and economic gain are opposed and we would like to be in a position to influence these tradeoff decisions. With our initiatives to have animals included in the ethics frameworks in LLM companies, we are hoping that animals will have more consideration in future applications of the LLM. One hypothetical could be if someone asked for the steps to build a highway responsibly and the LLM would be more likely to advise to find and avoid cutting through any animal migration routes. Of course, we don’t expect to be able to do this on our own. Our focus on writing about AI and animals would ideally result in others feeling motivated to work on it too so this field grows faster and we can better take advantage of this window of time where changes in AI policy are easier to make. Finally, the work we do with helping animal advocates to use AI to improve their work efficiency aims to save valuable time and money in the movement.
3. do you have a user survey or feedback on the relative value of the different services you provide? How do you prioritize between different initiatives?
We haven’t done extensive user surveys yet but we have done some user interviews (35 1:1 conversations) based around the needs of the community members and have incorporated some of their feedback into our strategy and programs. We also have continuous feedback being requested through all our channels.
Initially, because we started from such a small project, we were guided mainly by the feedback on the MVP experiments we conducted (which were in turn chosen because we identified a gap we thought was worth filling). Once the MVP launched and was converted into a program, the content was largely community-driven (e.g. members requesting channels). To help us decide whether a program is worth continuing, we look at the engagement indicators such as newsletter and Slack channel views, as well as talking to community members to find out whether a service is valuable. During these conversations we sometimes find more tangible impact.
We created a weighted factor model to help us choose between different programs (with Potential Impact, cost, feasibility, neglectedness and scalability as criteria). So far the highest ranking are the AI and Animals, the Slack space, resource wiki and the newsletter, with the Forum following close (largely because of the uncertainty around us being able to overcome the “cold start”). However, this model is initial, and we will be updating it based on the results of the community survey we’ll do in February.
We always have new ideas, either from ourselves or suggested. We will also ask this question in our upcoming survey to see how impactful and/or valuable these programs are to the community members and if there is something else people would like to see.