I think philosophically it could be interesting whether if we were at 90% of neartermist EA funding going to animals whether we should move it all the way to 100%, but since this is very far from reality, I think practically we don’t need to think/​worry much about ‘going all-in on animal welfare’.
I think the Rethink people were suitably circumspect about their conclusions and the assumptions they made, but yes probably others have taken some claims out of context.
I think philosophically it could be interesting whether if we were at 90% of neartermist EA funding going to animals whether we should move it all the way to 100%, but since this is very far from reality, I think practically we don’t need to think/​worry much about ‘going all-in on animal welfare’.
I think the Rethink people were suitably circumspect about their conclusions and the assumptions they made, but yes probably others have taken some claims out of context.
Yeah, I wish they had clarified how many years the $100m is spread out over. See my point 3 in reply to akash above.