AnonymousTurtle

Karma: 1,328

AnonymousTurtle 6 Jun 2026 23:42 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ariel Simnegar 🔸’s comment on: animal welfare has an evidence problem
I also recommend reading Natalia’s answers to Elizabeth’s posts, both here and on LessWrong (you need to scroll down a bit there) instead of just reading the post uncritically.^[1]
I didn’t get the sense that Natalia’s epistemics were poorer than commenters in other cause areas, but I did get the sense that the evidence base available is weaker.
Regarding this post, as a non-expert I wouldn’t be shocked if shrimp stunning and slaughter interventions turned out to be less valuable than we currently think, as it’s such a new field and shrimp seem hard to study.
But for cage-free campaigns there’s been a lof of research, analysis, and debate in EA for more than 5 years. My sense is that people studying these things have many reasons to believe that these interventions are very likely to be net positive (and are deeply aware of the significant downsides of cage-free systems, they just have compelling arguments for why the upsides compensate for those)^[2]
I also don’t think there’s much pressure by donors/volunteers/employees to invest in cage free campaigns compared to things like vegan advocacy, or promotion of plant-based defaults in schools/hospitals/workplaces. If anything I’d guess the opposite, and that senior people pushing for cage-free interventions really do it because of the data (and of course tractability)
1. ^
  But I do think most EAs should get their ferritin levels tested: low iron impacts productivity, EAs are uniquely likely to be lacto-vegetarian, which according to Gemini is “one of the most difficult dietary patterns for maintaining adequate iron levels”, and 80mg equivalent iron tablets are very cheap
2. ^
  But it does seem that the actual estimated marginal cost-effectiveness numbers could be very different from what’s often claimed

AnonymousTurtle 23 May 2026 16:30 UTC
19 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Yay Meristinoux’s comment on: EA sexual harassment: Where’s the evidence we’re worse than baseline?
I was about to write a very similar comment.
Concretely and practically, if the EA environment is unusually predatory, I should warn women I know against applying to jobs in EA or attending EA groups/events, or at least inform them that they would be at risk.
If the EA community is safer then the counterfactual (for which country-level base rates are a reasonable default) then I shouldn’t (if only because doing so would put them at more risk.)
So this would be a decision-relevant thing to know about, but as you mention I’m not sure it’s tractable to get this information.

AnonymousTurtle 23 May 2026 14:40 UTC
14 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: lilly’s comment on: EA sexual harassment: Where’s the evidence we’re worse than baseline?
Thank you for sharing your experience, and I’m really sorry you had to experience this.
Writing the below not as a response to you, but for other readers.
(1) each instance felt minor, (2) it felt like reporting would be more trouble than it was worth (time-consuming, burdensome), and (3) I want to maintain relationships with some of these people. [...] (4) it was not clear to me (at the time, and in some cases, even now) that certain behaviors were inappropriate
I recently reported a minor concern to the community health team and it was surprisingly straightforward, they have a form here: https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/community-health/contact-us with a text field and everything else is optional
CEA has been investing between 5 and 7 FTEs (including fairly senior ones) for years in their community health team, which is several million dollars in salaries and opportunity costs, so my sense is that they really value these reports. The page starts with:
Please have a low bar for getting in touch. We welcome small pieces of information, even if you’re not sure they warrant us taking action. Often people are worried that their issue is too minor to tell us, but we’re glad they shared it. We can likely still be helpful, and it’s useful information that could help us spot patterns of problems in the community.”
That said, for me it was possible to report things anonymously, I realize that’s not always the case.
1-on-1s where the other person seemed to only want to talk about personal matters
I also had this happen several times, and while it was never flirtatious or anything close to harassment, the first time I found it really frustrating, and I wish there was a stronger norm about being clear if you’re requesting a social 1-1 instead of a professional/impact-focused 1-1

AnonymousTurtle 13 Apr 2026 10:32 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Lessons from the Ridglan rescue: Love as growth engine
Love this post, I think this framing can really help with engagement and retention, and to turn supporters into advocates, especially in the animal rights movement where so many people burn out or struggle to stay involved.
A small nitpick:
Celebrities who have never been previously particularly active on animal rights (e.g. Dave Portnoy, Ricky Gervais)
Dave Portnoy donated and fundraised hundreds of thousands of dollars for dog shelters.
Ricky Gervais is even vegan and has been very active on animal rights, especially dogs. He recently donated 2.5 million pounds to animal charities, and has been advocating against animal testing on beagles for a long time.
My impression is that the animal rights movement has been very successful in terms of celebrity endorsements, I’m surprised that I haven’s seen much of it for EA-style welfarist work (e.g. cage-free campaigns) and I wonder if there could be some opportunities there.

AnonymousTurtle 2 Mar 2026 22:38 UTC
9 points
0 ∶ 0
on: AnonymousTurtle’s Quick takes
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/G5TwJ9BGxcgh5DsmQ/yes-requires-the-possibility-of-no

AnonymousTurtle 11 Nov 2025 16:01 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: Will Welfareans Get to Experience the Future?
Interesting. Could you point to anyone in EA who does not agree with the additive view and works in this field?

AnonymousTurtle 11 Nov 2025 9:24 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: Will Welfareans Get to Experience the Future?
I agree with you, as do most people outside of EA, but I believe almost everyone in EA working on these topics disagrees

AnonymousTurtle 3 Nov 2025 22:57 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: Will Welfareans Get to Experience the Future?
simulating the same wonderful experience a billion times certainly isn’t a billion times greater than simulating it once
My sense is that most people in EA working on these topics disagree.

AnonymousTurtle 3 Nov 2025 22:53 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jesper 🔸’s comment on: Will Welfareans Get to Experience the Future?
See also https://www.alignmentforum.org/w/super-beneficiaries which seems really similar to this post

AnonymousTurtle 12 Sep 2025 0:36 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: MichaelDickens’s comment on: NunoSempere’s Shortform
Google Docs natively supports exporting, importing, copying and pasting as Markdown
Use Markdown in Google Docs, Slides, & Drawings—Google Docs Editors Help https://support.google.com/docs/answer/12014036?hl=en#zippy=%2Cexport-a-google-doc-as-markdown

AnonymousTurtle 26 Aug 2025 23:26 UTC
8 points
2 ∶ 6
on: Politics is an EA blindspot
I think many people following effective altruism principles are focusing on politics, but don’t write it in places like the EA forum, because the EA brand is toxic in many circles, and/or has a significant chance of becoming toxic in the future.
See e.g. NIST staffers revolt against expected appointment of ‘effective altruist’ AI researcher to US AI Safety Institute

AnonymousTurtle 18 Jun 2025 8:43 UTC
8 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ian Turner’s comment on: What’s your experience with elitism in EA? [Survey]
While both are rich by global standards, someone in the top 10% ($20k/year) and someone in the top 1% (>$60k/year) have very different abilities to donate.
This becomes even more noticeable as relatively less rich people also often have to support their families, pay off debts, and can’t rely on a future inheritance.

ETA: One org used to ask something like: “if you earned $50k, how much would you donate and why?” which imho mitigates this (although not perfectly)

AnonymousTurtle 12 Jun 2025 7:17 UTC
5 points
1 ∶ 0
on: The Importance of Blasting Good Ideas Into The Ether
Do you have a sense of how important Hanania’s support was for the post going viral?
It would make me update on the value of being more iclusive towards people who have very different beliefs which seem incompatible with altruism.

AnonymousTurtle 10 May 2025 22:24 UTC
10 points
5 ∶ 0
in reply to: Throwaway81’s comment on: 5 Historical Case Studies for an EA in Decline
And the amount spent in ads, I think X ads to promote EAG might be a new thing

AnonymousTurtle 9 May 2025 17:05 UTC
0 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: emre kaplan🔸’s comment on: emre kaplan’s Quick takes
I think using an anonymous account helps a bit with that, especially when writing praise feels cringy

AnonymousTurtle 2 Apr 2025 12:18 UTC
0 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: tobycrisford 🔸’s comment on: Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test
I probably need to stop saying that AI hasn’t passed the Turing test yet then. I guess it has!

By that definition, ELIZA would have passed the Turing test in 1966

AnonymousTurtle 2 Apr 2025 11:38 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: tobycrisford 🔸’s comment on: Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test
But I do really like that these researchers have put the test online for people to try!
https://turingtest.live/
Thanks for sharing, it’s an interesting experience.
As you mention for now it’s really easy to tell humans and AIs apart, but I found it surprisingly hard to convince people I was human.

AnonymousTurtle 28 Mar 2025 9:42 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: Ozzie Gooen’s Shortform
I think a main argument related to that perspective is that you shouldn’t tax wealth but you should tax consumption (holding billions in stocks and bonds has positive externalities, buying a yacht fleet has negative externalities)
I obviously don’t agree with it, so I’m likely not presenting the strongest version of the arguments, but you can see an example of people holding this view in the twitter screenshot above, and I think it’s not uncommon

AnonymousTurtle 28 Mar 2025 9:38 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: Ozzie Gooen’s Shortform
Yes that’s a fair point. Do you think the claim itself is false?
I was under the impression that many YMBY/Abundance/Progress Studies-minded EA communities were operating with that theory of change, am I wrong?

AnonymousTurtle 28 Mar 2025 9:35 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Matthew_Barnett’s comment on: Ozzie Gooen’s Shortform
Thanks for replying with data. I think what matters for EA fundraising strategy is the relative share of wealth in the top 0.1% and in the top 1% (or maybe top 10%), it’s great that the share of wealth in the bottom 50% is increasing, but I don’t expect many there to be significant donors (with important but rare exceptions).
It’s also not clear to me how liquid is the wealth in social insurance programs, I don’t expect it to be a viable source of donations/influence/impact (but of course it’s great that more people are covered by insurance)
I also think that I was mistaken to mention “the last decades”, as “the last 5-10 years” seems a more relevant time frame for changes in EA strategy.
In my opinion the perception that inequality is increasing could also be due to relative comparisons between the top 1%-10% and the top 0.1%-0.01%, as the former becomes relatively less influential.