Thanks for doing this Saulius! I have been wondering about modeling the cost effectiveness of animal welfare advocacy under assumptions of relatively short AI timelines. It seems like one possible way of doing this is to to change the “Yearly decrease in probability that commitment is relevant” numbers in your sheet (cells I28:30). Do you have any thoughts on that approach?
In general, if you are worried that animal advocacy efforts will soon become irrelevant because the world will change a lot soon, it could make sense to donate to charities that have impact quickly. Shrimp Welfare Project might qualify. But maybe it makes more sense to try to find a way to impact the welfare of animals in the post-AGI world somehow, even though it’s really unclear how to do that.
Regarding the cells I28:30, yes you could do that, it would change estimates for cage-free and broiler reforms. If you think these yearly probability that commitments become irrelevant should be higher, I’d be curious for which reason. Possible reasons I listed include x-risks, global catastrophic risks, societal collapse, cultured meat taking over, animals bred not to suffer, black swans.
For context, my choices for “Yearly decrease in probability that commitment is relevant” numbers are informed by this forecast which predicts that the number of chickens slaughtered for meat will be roughly the same in 2052 as it is now, but just 12% of what it is now in 2122. My value for 2122 is slightly lower, 11% because that meticulous question also has this condition: “If humanity goes extinct or ceases to have a developed society prior to a listed year, that sub-question will resolve as Ambiguous.” I only decreased the forecast for 2122 slightly because this forecast predicts that the probability of human extinction before 2100 is just 1%, although looking back at this, I think I could’ve adjusted for x-risks more because much higher estimates of x-risks seem reasonable.
Thanks for doing this Saulius! I have been wondering about modeling the cost effectiveness of animal welfare advocacy under assumptions of relatively short AI timelines. It seems like one possible way of doing this is to to change the “Yearly decrease in probability that commitment is relevant” numbers in your sheet (cells I28:30). Do you have any thoughts on that approach?
In general, if you are worried that animal advocacy efforts will soon become irrelevant because the world will change a lot soon, it could make sense to donate to charities that have impact quickly. Shrimp Welfare Project might qualify. But maybe it makes more sense to try to find a way to impact the welfare of animals in the post-AGI world somehow, even though it’s really unclear how to do that.
Regarding the cells I28:30, yes you could do that, it would change estimates for cage-free and broiler reforms. If you think these yearly probability that commitments become irrelevant should be higher, I’d be curious for which reason. Possible reasons I listed include x-risks, global catastrophic risks, societal collapse, cultured meat taking over, animals bred not to suffer, black swans.
For context, my choices for “Yearly decrease in probability that commitment is relevant” numbers are informed by this forecast which predicts that the number of chickens slaughtered for meat will be roughly the same in 2052 as it is now, but just 12% of what it is now in 2122. My value for 2122 is slightly lower, 11% because that meticulous question also has this condition: “If humanity goes extinct or ceases to have a developed society prior to a listed year, that sub-question will resolve as Ambiguous.” I only decreased the forecast for 2122 slightly because this forecast predicts that the probability of human extinction before 2100 is just 1%, although looking back at this, I think I could’ve adjusted for x-risks more because much higher estimates of x-risks seem reasonable.