Principal — Good Structures
I previously co-founded and served as Executive Director at Wild Animal Initiative, and was the COO of Rethink Priorities from 2020 to 2024.
abrahamrowe
Karma: 4,784
Nice! And yeah, I shouldn’t have said downstream. I mean something like, (almost) every intervention has wild animal welfare considerations (because many things end up impacting wild animals), so if you buy that wild animal welfare matters, the complexity of solving WAW problems isn’t just a problem for WAI — it’s a problem for everyone.
I have seen this before, and wondered if it is conflation with Humane Society of the United States (which is often called the Humane Society). Also, many local animal shelters are named “Humane Society”. I’d guess this phrase would have very high recognition in the US.
Thanks! That’s useful and makes sense! Appreciate the quick response
Minor question—I noticed that the website states for the climate fund that the same donation will help a lot more animals than the impact fund (over 2x as many—and mostly driven by chickens and pigs). I know the numbers are likely low confidence, but just curious how you’re thinking about those, as to me it was unintuitive to have one labelled “impact fund” that straightforwardly looks worse on animal impacts than the climate fund (and also worse on the climate side!). I didn’t quite understand why this was happening from looking at the calculations page (though from the charities in each, I definitely have the sense that the impact fund is better for animals!)
I voted for Wild Animal Initiative, followed by Shrimp Welfare Project and Arthropoda Foundation (I have COIs with WAI and Arthropoda).
All three cannot be funded by OpenPhil/GVF currently, despite WAI/SWP being heavily funded previously by them.
I think that wild animal welfare is the single most important animal welfare issue, and it remains incredibly neglected, with just WAI working on it exclusively.
Despite this challenge, WAI seems to have made a ton of progress on building the scientific knowledge needed to actually make progress on these issues.
Since founding and leaving WAI, I’ve just become increasingly optimistic about there being a not-too-long-term pathway to robust interventions to help wild animals, and to wild animal welfare going moderately mainstream within conservation biology/ecology.
Wild animal welfare is downstream from ~every other cause area. If you think it is a problem, but that we can’t do anything about it because the issue is so complicated, then the same is true of the wild animal welfare impacts of basically all other interventions EAs pursue. This seems like a huge issue for knowing the impact of our work. No one is working on this except WAI, and no other issues seem to cut across all causes the way wild animal welfare does.
SWP seems like they are implementing the most cost-effective animal welfare intervention that is remotely scalable right now.
In general, I favor funding research, because historically OpenPhil has been far more likely to fund research than other funders, and it is pretty hard for research-focused organizations to compete with intervention-focused organizations in the animal funding scene, despite lots of interventions being downstream from research. Since Arthropoda also does scientific field building / research funding, I added it to my list.
This is starting to feel pretty bad faith, so I’m actually going to stop engaging.
(Responding because this is inaccurate): My claim in the comment above was that you haven’t provided any evidence that:
5 / 11 (or more) ACE top charities are not effective
That animals are suffering as a result of ACE recommendations
Which remains the case — I look forward to you producing it.
Wait, those are related to each other though—if we haven’t seen the full impact of their previous actions, we haven’t yet seen their historical cost-effectiveness in full! Also, you cite these as reasons the project should be dismissed in your post—you have a section literally called “Legal Impact for Chickens Did Not Achieve Any Favorable Legal Outcomes, Yet ACE Rated Them a Top Charity” which reads to me that you believe that it is bad they were rated a Top Charity, and make these same arguments (and no others) in the section, suggesting that you think this evidence means they should be dismissed.
This is not what we are trying to do. We simply critiqued the way that ACE calculated historic cost-effectiveness, and how ACE gave Legal Impact for Chickens a relatively high historic cost-effectiveness rating despite have no historic success.
FWIW this seems great—excited to see more comprehensive evaluations. Yeah, I agree with many of your comments here on the granular level — it seems you found something that is a potential issue for how ACE does (or did) some aspects of their evaluations, and publishing that is great! I think we just disagree on how important it is?
By the way, I’m ending further engagement on this (though feel free to leave a response if useful!) just because I already find the EA Forum distracting from other work, and don’t have time this week to think about this more. Appreciate you going through everything with me!
I don’t find that evidence particularly compelling on its own, no. Lots of projects cost more than 1M or take more than a few years to have success. I don’t see why those things would be cause to dismiss a project out of hand. I don’t really buy social movement theories of change for animal advocacy, but many people do, and it just seems like many social movement-y things take a long time to build momentum, and legal and research-focused projects take forever to play out. Things I’d want to look at to form a view on this (though to be clear, I plausibly agree with you!):
How much lawsuits of this type typically cost
What the base rate for success is for this kind of work
How long this kind of work typically takes to get traction
Has anyone else tried similar work on misleading labelling or whatever? Was it effective or not?
Has LIC’s work inspired other lawsuits, as ACE reported might be a positive side effect?
I don’t think we disagree that much here, except how much these things matter — I don’t really care about ACE’s ability to analyze cost-effectiveness outside broad strokes because I think the primary benefits of organizations like ACE is shifting money to more cost-effective things within the animal space, which I do believe ACE does. I also don’t mind ACE endorsing speculative bets that don’t pay off — I think there are many things that were worth paying for in expectation that don’t end up helping any animals, and will continue to be, because we don’t really know very many effective ways to help animals so the information value of trying new things is high.
But to answer your question specifically, I’d be very skeptical of anyone’s numbers on future cost-effectiveness, ACE’s or yours or my own, because I think this is an issue that has historically been extremely difficult to estimate cost-effectiveness for. I’m not convinced that’s the right way to approach identifying effective animal interventions, in part because it is so hard to do well. I don’t really think ACE is making cost-effectiveness estimates here though—it seems much more like trying to get a rough sense of relative cost-effectiveness, which, putting aside the methodological issues you’ve raised, seems like the right approach to me, but only a small part of the information I’d want to know where money should move in animal advocacy.
I don’t really have a strong view about LIC—as I’ve mentioned elsewhere in the comments, I’m skeptical in general that very EA donors should give to farmed vertebrate welfare issues in the near future. But I don’t find this level of evidence particularly compelling on its own. I think I feel confused about the example you’re giving because it isn’t about hypothetical cost-effectiveness, it’s about historic cost-effectiveness, where what matters are the counterfactuals.
I broadly think the critique is interesting, and again, seems like probably an issue with the methodology, but on its own doesn’t seem like reason to think that ACE isn’t identifying good donation opportunities, because things besides cost-effectiveness also matter here.
From this post, it seems like you’re trying to calculate historic cost-effectiveness and rate charities exclusively on that (since you haven’t published an evaluation of an animal charity yet I could be wrong here though). My understanding of what ACE is trying to do with its evaluations as a whole is identify where marginal dollars might be most useful for animal advocacy, and move money from less effective opportunities to those. Cost-effectiveness might be one component of that, but is far from the only one (e.g. intervention scalability might matter, having a diversity of types of opportunities to appeal to different donors, etc.). It’s pretty easy to imagine scenarios where you wouldn’t prefer to only look at cost-effectiveness of individual charities when making recommendation, even if that’s what matters in the end. It’s also easy to imagine scenarios where recommending less effective opportunities leads to better outcomes to animals—maybe installing shrimp stunners is super effective, but only some donors will give to it. Maybe it can only scale to a few M per year but you influence more money than that. Depending on your circumstances, a lot more than cost-effectiveness of specific interventions matters for making the most effective recommendations.
My understanding is also that ACE doesn’t see EAs as its primary audience (but I’m less certain about this). This is a reason I’m excited about your project—seems nice to have “very EA” evaluations of charities in addition to ACE’s. But, I also imagine it would be hard to get charities to participate in your evaluation process if you don’t run the evaluations by them in advance, which could make it hard for you to get information to do what you’re trying to do, unless you rely on the information ACE collects, which then puts you in an awkward position of making a strong argument against an organization you might need to conduct evaluations.
My understanding is ACE has tried to do something that’s just cost-effectiveness analysis in the past (they used to give probability distributions for how many animals were helped, for example). But it’s really difficult to do confidently for animal issues, and that’s part of the reason it’s only a portion of the whole picture (along with other factors like I mention above).
…we have reviewed 5 of ACE’s “Top 11 Animal Charities to Donate to in 2024” and only one of them (Shrimp Welfare Project) appears to be an effective charity for helping animals. ACE’s poor evaluation process leads to ineffective charities receiving recommendations, and many animals are suffering as a result.
I understand these are forthcoming, but no evidence is provided for this entire part—part of the reason I pushed on this is I think seeing your alternative evaluations would be very helpful for interpreting the strength of the critique of ACE. Without seeing them, I can’t evaluate the latter half of the quoted text. And in my eyes, if these are similar to the evaluation here of LIC, it’s pretty far from demonstrating that ineffective charities are receiving recommendations, etc. And, given that you’ve only evaluated <50% of their charities so far, it seems preemptive to make the overall claim. I think the overall claim is very possibly true, but again, I think to make the argument that animals are directly suffering as a result of this, you’d have to demonstrate that those charities are worse than other donation options, that donors would give to the better options, etc.
Thanks! My wording in the above message was imprecise, but I mean something like farmed vertebrates. SWP is probably among the two most important things to fund, in my opinion.
Basically I think the size of good opportunities in farmed animal advocacy is smaller than OpenPhil’s grantmaking budget and there are few scalable interventions, though I don’t think I want to go into most the reasons publicly. Given that they’ve stopped funding many of what I believe are more cost-effective projects, and that EA donors are basically the only people willing to fund those, EA donors should be mostly inclined to fund things OpenPhil can’t fund instead.
So some combination of 1+2 (for farmed vertebrates) + other factors
(I responded privately to this but wrote up some related reflections a while ago here).
Thank you for reading some of the article. I hope that you find some time to read the rest.
To be clear, I read the whole thing—I meant that I think the fact that a pretty important issue jumped out to me within a few minutes of starting reading struck me as a reason that getting feedback from ACE seems really important.
Did you ask ACE to review this before publishing?
I really think you should! I also really think you should ask for feedback from other people who have done charity evaluations, and the charities you evaluate. You should definitely still publish them, but they’ll be better critiques for having engaged with the best case for the thing you’re critiquing!
What do you mean by conceptualizing funds? In this hypothetical, they simply spend $200k less on the lawsuit. LIC did not spend their entire budget, and charities oftentimes do not. Under ACE’s methodology, LIC’s cost-effectiveness would improve if they spent $200k less and achieved the exact same total outcomes as a charity. The calculations we’ve done are 100% objective, and if you can find an error that we made, please let us know. You can find those calculations here:
Yep, this seems right, but it’s also the case that if they did something else with that funding, the effectiveness of that action would be rated much more highly, which also seems correct. I think the issues you point to are interesting, but they strike me as intentional decisions, which ACE may have internal views on, and for which I think getting their feedback might be really important. You are correct about a mathematical fact, but both you and ACE seem to have different goals (calculating historic cost-effectiveness vs marginal impact of future dollars), and there are assumptions underlying your analysis that if changed, might change the output.
What assumptions are you referring to?
I meant ACE’s assumptions—I thought your post raised some really good questions. They are issues that if I saw, I’d email to ACE and ask why they made the choices they made, then choose whether or not to publicly publish them based on their response. Maybe these choices are reasonable, and maybe they aren’t—you raised some really good points I think. But it just seems hard to evaluate in a vacuum.
LIC has a historical track record, and it is a bad one. People should have the opportunity to start something new. However, they shouldn’t be rated a top charity after receiving over a million dollars in funding and failing to achieve any positive legal outcomes.
Again, I don’t really see good evidence for this—what is the typical track record for legal campaigns? How much do they cost? How long do they take to work? These all would be important questions to answer before claiming cost-effectiveness or lack thereof. In this case, I could easily be persuaded to agree with you, but not for any of the reasons in your analysis — the fact that they spent some money some lawsuits and it didn’t work isn’t the only evidence I’d want to think about whether or not donations to them will be useful.
Did you ask ACE to review this before publishing? It seems like the kind of thing that would be worth getting feedback on before publishing. I didn’t look at this for more than a couple minutes, but I saw immediately that there might be some conceptual disagreements between you and ACE—for example, I noticed that in your first example, you assume in your example (I believe), that if LIC didn’t spend 200k on the lawsuit against Costco, they wouldn’t spend it on anything else. It’s unclear to me that this is the counterfactual, or how ACE is conceptualizing those funds. There might be reasoning behind their decisionmaking that would be useful to your critiques they could share.
I also felt like this felt pretty politically motivated. Not sure if that is your intention, but paragraphs like this:
ACE’s recommendations determine which animal charities receive millions of dollars in donations.[1] Thus far, we have reviewed 5 of ACE’s “Top 11 Animal Charities to Donate to in 2024” and only one of them (Shrimp Welfare Project) appears to be an effective charity for helping animals. ACE’s poor evaluation process leads to ineffective charities receiving recommendations, and many animals are suffering as a result.
Without any evidence feels pretty intense. ACE is kind of low hanging fruit to pick on in the EA space, so this read to me like more of that, without necessarily the evidence base to back it. Reading your report, I felt kind of like “oh, there are interesting assumptions here, would be interested to learn more”, and not “ACE is doing an extremely bad job.”
E.g. I think the questions that would be good to ask in a critique of ACE might be:
If ACE didn’t exist, how would the funds the direct be spent otherwise? Would that be better or worse for animals?
Is historical track record / cost-effectiveness the only lens on which to evaluate charities?
If the answer is yes, seems very hard to start new things!
I don’t know if the LIC legal case is this, but celebrating the potential impact of promising bets that didn’t pan out seems good to me.
I also think getting feedback on statements like this would be really helpful:
The correct formula for calculating cost-effectiveness is simply impact divided by cost. Rather than using this simple formula, ACE has elected to create a methodology that does not properly account for impact or cost.
I think ACE has wanted to do this at points in their history — my impression is just that it is incredibly difficult, so they’ve approached it from other angles instead. I also don’t think it’s clear to me that ACE’s goal is to report cost-effectiveness. I think clarifying this with them, and getting a sense of why they don’t do what you see as the simple approach would be useful for making this critique stronger. And, I don’t think people should make giving decisions based only on historic cost-effectiveness—just because an opportunity was impactful doesn’t mean the organization needs more funds to do that work, that it will scale, work in the future, etc.
I don’t disagree that ACE might be directing funds to ineffective charities! I don’t really think non-OpenPhil EA donors should give to farmed animal welfare, for example. But, I don’t think it is obvious to me that ACE going away means money going to more effective charities—I expect it would mostly be worse—people giving to animal charities with basically no vetting.
That being said, critique of critical organizations is great in my opinion, so appreciate you putting this out there!
Note that we now have raised $3,015 in pledges for November, and the marginal $25 donation will influence the allocation of around $234. In October, the average donation influenced $221.50, so if you’re excited to directly influence the allocation of funding between EA causes, this is still a great way to give right now! You can sign up here.
Thanks! Strongly agree with making it more democratic via some mechanism, and if it survives beyond the first 6 months, I plan on moving it to having some kind of elected oversight group or similar (mainly will figure out how to do that with input from the members). Interesting note on sortition—this seems plausibly like a good use for it. Thanks!
Equal Hands — 2 Month Update
Equal Hands is an experiment in democratizing effective giving. Donors simulate pooling their resources together, and voting how to distribute them across cause areas. All votes count equally, independent of someone’s ability to give.
You can learn more about it here, and sign up to learn more or join here. If you sign up before December 16th, you can participate in our current round. As of December 7th, 2024 at 11:00pm Eastern time, 12 donors have pledged $2,915, meaning the marginal $25 donor will move ~$226 in expectation to their preferred cause areas.
In Equal Hands’ first 2 months, 22 donors participated and collectively gave $7,495.01 democratically to impactful charity. Including pledges for its third month, that number will likely increase to at least 24, and $10,410.01
Across the first two months, the gifts made by cause area and pseudo-counterfactual effect (e.g. if people had given their own money in line with their voting, rather than following the democratic outcome) has been:
Animal welfare: $3,133.35, a decrease of $1,662.15
Global health: $1,694.85, a decrease of $54.15
Global catastrophic risks: $2,093.91, an increase of $1,520.16
EA community building: $319.38, an increase of $179.63
Climate change: $253.52, an increase of $16.52
Interestingly, the primary impact has been money being reallocated from animal welfare to global catastrophic risks. From the very little data that we have, this primarily appears to be because animal welfare-motivated donors are much more likely to pledge large amounts to democratic giving, while GCR-motivated donors are more likely to sign up (or are a larger population in general), but are more likely to give smaller amounts.
I’m not sure why exactly this is! The motivation should be the same regardless of cause area for small donors — in expectation, the average vote has moved over $200 to each donor’s preferred causes across both of the first two months, so I would expect it to be motivating for donors from various backgrounds, but maybe GCR-motivated donors are more likely to think in this kind of reasoning.
GCR donors haven’t had as high-retention over the first three months of signups, so currently the third month looks like it might look a bit different — funding is primarily flowing out of animal welfare, and going to a mix of global health and GCRs.
The total administrative time for me to operate Equal Hands has been around 45 minutes per month. I think it will remain below 1 hour per month with up to 100 donors, which is somewhat below what I expected when I started this project.
We’d love to see more people join! I think this project works best by having a larger number of donors, especially people interested in giving above the minimum of $25. If you want to learn more or sign up, you can do so here!