I am an associate researcher at IAPS, where I am researching AI integrity and compute governance. Previously, I was an IAPS fellow, GovAI summer fellow, participant in ARENA 5.0, hardware security research assistant through the SPAR program, and security engineer at a hedge fund. I recently graduated from Columbia University in December 2024, where I studied computer science.
All views expressed here are my own.
Leave anonymous feedback here!
(Caveat: I havenāt actually read the post and have not voted on the post. I am inclined to believe that the OPās methodology is generally good given the OPās track record of publishing high-quality posts and comments. It could be the case that this post is an outlier and is actually poorly arguedāhence the downvotes)
For those who are downvoting this post, could you please explain why youāre downvoting? Off the top of my head, here are some reasons for why people would be downvoting:
You disagree with the conclusions of the post (in which case, it usually makes more sense to disagree-vote)
You disagree with the methodology /ā think that the methodology is flawed (in which case, a downvote is likely justified)
You feel like the OP āspamsā the EA forum with similar arguments and that each new post is not adding value on the margin (in which case, it probably makes sense to downvote?)
If this is how you feel, Iām not sure what the OP should do in response. Should the OP stop posting?
It is possible to rationally prioritise between causes without engaging deeply on philosophical issues
Population axiology is a major crux for cause prio. Additionally, different moral views on wild animals massively changes cause prio.
Morality is Objective
Roughly speaking, I find emotivism to be the most convincing metaethical theory
Does this take bioavailability into account? IIUC, humans canāt absorb 100% of plant based proteins, while we can absorb nearly 100% of animal-based proteins. The upshot is that your spreadsheet isnāt tracking the actual amount of protein human bodies will absorb