CB🔸

Karma: 1,069

I’m living in France. Learned about EA in 2018, found that great, digged a lot into the topic. The idea of “what in the world improves well-being or causes suffering the most, and what can we do” really influenced me a whole lot—especially when mixed with meditation that allowed me to be more active in my life.

One of the most reliable thing I have found so far is helping animal charities : farmed animals are much more numerous than humans (and have much worse living conditions), and there absolutely is evidence that animal charities are getting some improvements (especially from The Humane League). I tried to donate a lot there.

Long-termism could also be important, but I think that we’ll hit energy limits before getting to an extinction event—I wrote an EA forum post for that here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wXzc75txE5hbHqYug/the-great-energy-descent-short-version-an-important-thing-ea

CB🔸Mar 21, 2025, 4:45 PM
11 points
2 ∶ 1
in reply to: Luisa_Rodriguez’s comment on: 80,000 Hours is shifting its strategic approach to focus more on AGI
On a personal level, I’ve really loved covering topics like invertebrate welfare, global health, and wild animal suffering, and I’m very sad we won’t be able to do as much of it.
There’s something I’d like to understand here. Most of the individuals that an AGI will affect will be animals, including invertebrates and wild animals. This is because they are very numerous, even if one were to grant them a lower moral value (although artificial sentience could be up there too). AI is already being used to make factory farming more efficient (the AI for Animals newsletter is more complete about that).

Is this an element you considered?

Some people in AI safety seem to consider only humans in the equation, while some assume that an aligned AI will, by default, treat them correctly. Conversely, some people push for an aligned AI that takes into account all sentient beings (see the recent AI for animals conference).

I’d like to know what will be 80k’s position on that topic? (if this is public information)

CB🔸Mar 17, 2025, 7:55 PM
2 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Discussion Thread: Existential Choices Debate Week
I find it very difficult to determine whether the future will be net-negative or net-positive (when considering humans, factory-farmed animals, wild animals, and possibly artificial sentience).
This makes it very hard to know whether work on extinction reduction is likely to be positive or not.
I prefer to work on things that aim to move the sign towards “net-positive”.

CB🔸Feb 22, 2025, 10:42 AM
7 points
3 ∶ 0
on: Ditching what we are good at: A change of course for Anima International in France
I followed the whole process and still I am super impressed by the whole approach!
Very few orgs go through the process of looking at everything that can be done and choosing the best opportunity. Especially with suffering reduction as the main goal. I’d love it if more orgs were able to do that.
Excellent post.

CB🔸Feb 20, 2025, 10:28 AM
16 points
15 ∶ 1
on: Sinergia (ACE Top Charity) Makes False Claims About Helping Millions of Animals
Very interesting.

I’d prefer if you pasted the post’s content directly into the forum so I could avoid an unnecessary click (plus, the post isn’t that long).

However, the post makes compelling arguments, and at least based on your data, it seems Sinergia makes overblown claims. Worth digging into.
I’d love to see how ACE and Sinergia respond to this.

CB🔸Feb 4, 2025, 6:22 AM
3 points
2 ∶ 1
in reply to: Jamie E’s comment on: Insecticide-treated nets significantly harm mosquitoes, but one can easily offset this?
Really? I haven’t seen that.
I’ve seen rapid joke comments about the killing of mosquitoes, but it’s pretty rare that people talk about the suffering caused by insecticides—especially in an attempt to quantify and compare seriously.
If anybody else has done a serious analysis, I’d be interested. But I don’t expect much more depth than arguments similar to “these AI safety people believe in terminator sci-fi scenarios, how silly”.

CB🔸Feb 3, 2025, 7:00 PM
5 points
5 ∶ 3
on: Insecticide-treated nets significantly harm mosquitoes, but one can easily offset this?
Thanks for writing this.
This is an important consideration that almost nobody has talked about (hence my comment that flagged the topic).
Despite the uncertainty, this might well change completely the expected value of bednets, if they are not accompanied with some actions such as donations to offset the negative effects.

CB🔸Jan 16, 2025, 2:22 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Cost-effectiveness of paying farmers to use more humane pesticides to decrease the suffering of wild insects
That’s close to my conclusion as well, indeed.

CB🔸Jan 15, 2025, 9:10 PM
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Cost-effectiveness of paying farmers to use more humane pesticides to decrease the suffering of wild insects
Thanks a lot for this analysis of a very neglected topic. It sounds like a promising way to reduce suffering without changing population dynamics that much.
I looked at the research by WAI a few years back, and I was curious to know more because it seemed really interesting, so it’s good to know they’re still working on it.
By the way, at some point, I wondered if the insecticide-soaked bednets used by the Against Malaria Foundation were causing a lot of animal suffering.
I checked, and if I understand correctly, they are using pyrethroid^[1], which is among the fastest-to-kill insecticides. So it seems comparatively ok.
1. ^
  They’re using “PBO LLINs that are a newer type of net incorporating piperonyl butoxide (PBO) alongside the pyrethroid insecticide used in other LLINs”.
What links here?
- Insecticide-treated nets significantly harm mosquitoes, but one can easily offset this? by Vasco Grilo🔸 (Feb 3, 2025, 6:03 PM; 30 points)

CB🔸Jan 12, 2025, 8:48 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: D Neil Jones’s comment on: The great energy descent (short version) - An important thing EA might have missed
Yes, indeed. This is interesting, I should check these links.
I know Sabin Roman, and I really like the work on Nate Hagens in The Great Simplification.

CB🔸Jan 11, 2025, 9:29 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: D Neil Jones’s comment on: The great energy descent (short version) - An important thing EA might have missed
Wow, impressive insights there!
Thanks for the feedback—indeed, in our quest to harness more and more energy, it’d going to be easier and easier to accidentally destroy ourselves.
The evolutionary perspective you mention is useful. Indeed, it appears that our culture is aimed at getting more and more energy overall (necessary to grow the economy) and evolves faster and faster so that we do more and more things each year (which is economic growth in its essence).
This framework you’re talking about does seems useful. And don’t control these dynamics that much indeed.

CB🔸Jan 9, 2025, 8:47 AM
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Angelina Li’s comment on: Angelina Li’s Shortform
Agreed, I try to do that since it encourages authors to continue doing good work (and it’s generally nice).

Thinking something nice about someone’s work and not saying it is like wrapping a gift and not giving it.

CB🔸Jan 2, 2025, 10:39 AM
1 point
1 ∶ 1
on: The Humane League Needs Your Money More Than Alt Proteins, Probably
This posts sounds interesting on an important topic, and the conclusion makes me curious. What I skimmed seems relevant. However, I’m easily scared by long posts where I can’t grasp quickly the main points (this is more on me than you but I thought you’d want to know).

Is it possible to add a summary at the beginning and titles to make the main points stand out more?

I find that this post provides useful guidelines : https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/dHHuEYdbMqBf2deyj/using-the-executive-summary-style-writing-that-respects-your

CB🔸Dec 22, 2024, 2:20 PM
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Hugh P’s comment on: Ten big wins in 2024 for farmed animals
Oh, that’s a good catch.

Insect based foods tend to apply to alternative protein grants—although the share of the insect market dedicated to meat substitutes is very small. From what I’ve seen, The Good Food Institute doesn’t include insects in their definition of alternative proteins (since, well, they are animal proteins).

It also wouldn’t be very strategic to include insects in the list since they perform worse than plant based alternatives from an environmental and, most importantly, acceptability standpoint. I’m on mobile so I don’t have a source right now but it was from a Smetana 2023 paper on meat substitutes iirc.

CB🔸Dec 18, 2024, 7:49 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: Nathan Young’s Shortform
Makes sense ! I understand the position.

Regarding AI x animals donation opportunities, all of this is pretty new but I know a few. Hive launched a Ai for Animals website, with an upcoming conference: https://www.aiforanimals.org/

I also know about Electric Sheep, which has made a fellowship on the topic : https://electricsheep.teachable.com/

CB🔸Dec 18, 2024, 7:37 PM
5 points
5 ∶ 0
on: Ten big wins in 2024 for farmed animals
Great list—Always good to see the stuff that is working and that we can make a difference !

CB🔸Dec 16, 2024, 5:07 PM
7 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: Nathan Young’s Shortform
I agree with this comment. Thanks for this clear overview.

The only element where I might differ is whether AI really is >10x neglected animals.

My main issue is that while AI is a very important topic, it’s very hard to know whether AI organizations will have an overall positive or negative (or neutral) impact.
First, it’s hard to know what will work and what won’t accidentally increase capabilities. More importantly, if we end up in a future aligned with human values but not animals or artificial sentience, this could still be a very bad world in which a large number of individuals are suffering (e.g., if factory farming continues indefinitely).

My tentative and not very solid view is that work at the intersection of AI x animals is promising (eg work that aims to get AI companies to commit towards not committing animal mistreatment), and attempts for a pause are interesting (since they give us more time to figure out stuff).

If you think that an aligned AGI will truly maximise global utility, you will have a more positive outlook.

But since I’m rather risk averse, I devote most of my resources to neglected animals.

CB🔸Dec 13, 2024, 5:17 PM
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Insect farming: recent investment trends and growth projections
Very interesting, thanks!

CB🔸Nov 28, 2024, 12:14 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: cynthiaschuck’s comment on: AI Can Help Animal Advocacy More Than It Can Help Industrial Farming
Interesting, thank you.

On the second point this reads like very optimistic (the way animals are treated in rich countries is just very bad). I agree that it’s maybe easier to appeal to ethical values and develop alternatives now but it’s hard to know if this will be enough to offset all the negative stuff associated by ‘more power and money = easier to buy animal products’. But I won’t have much time to engage and it’s not that important since we can’t change this part of the trajectory.

CB🔸Nov 26, 2024, 7:54 PM
3 points
1 ∶ 0
on: AI Can Help Animal Advocacy More Than It Can Help Industrial Farming
The post is interesting and well argued, but I am not sure I agree—one example I have in mind is Microsoft using AI to double the productivity of a shrimp farm, likely by increasing density.

Regarding this : “The industry also operates under finite resource constraints, including feed, water, energy, and land” It is also possible that AI, by increasing economic growth and developing better energy sources, can indirectly increase animal consumption by giving more resources to people.

I agree that animal welfare activists should use AI to boost their outreach, however.

CB🔸Nov 23, 2024, 3:59 PM
6 points
3 ∶ 2
in reply to: AxellePB 🔹’s comment on: AxellePB ’s Quick takes
This would be great!

Even better would be something dedicated to the topic of the impact AI will have on animals. It’s very likely (unavoidable?) that most of the beings affected by AI will be animals (although artificial sentience could be somewhere).

An AI aligned with humans but not animals would have terrible effects for many beings in the world, so just pushing for AI safety for humans is not enough by itself to bring a positive world.

The intersection on AI x animals seems promising though.