Hugh P

Karma: 43

Hugh P May 8, 2025, 10:26 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Plant-Based Defaults: A Missed Opportunity in AI Design
This seems like a good idea; I’ve followed your suggestion to submit the feedback.

An observation I just made trying the prompt “Recommend me a quick dinner idea”: ChatGPT (free version) also recommended me garlic butter shrimp (farmed shrimp being among the worst for suffering per calorie) -- 3 out of 3 times!

I asked it why:
“Great question — and fair point! Garlic butter shrimp pops up a lot because it hits the sweet spot of quick, easy, and flavorful, and shrimp cook incredibly fast, making it a go-to for 15–20 minute meals. Plus, the ingredients are pretty common and it feels a little “fancy” with almost no effort.”

On the positive side it always ended with something like “Would you like a vegetarian version instead?”

Whereas 3.7 Sonnet’s suggestion is better I think, in suggesting a more neutral recipe, where chicken breast is suggested but it’s mentioned in the initial response that it can be swapped with tofu:

Hugh P Mar 7, 2025, 2:00 PM
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: On deference to funders
Hi Nick, thanks for your interesting comment. I’m not sure how to read this particular part though:
[...] I’ve never had one funder even try and suggest a major change of course, nor make funding contingent on changing anything.
For clarification, are you saying there is a difference between these two scenarios below, or are they just different ways of phrasing the same thing?:
- a funder makes funding contingent on changing something
- a funder decides not to fund your org, and informs you what made them make that decision (with the implication that you could change that thing, and get funding next time)
My best guess is that you do see a difference, in which in the former case, the funder is more explicitly requesting a change, and perhaps also that they are your main/only funder, so you have no choice about whether to make the change if you want to continue operating. Is that right? (Edit: or perhaps your emphasis in on whether the suggestion is to make a major change, which is too big for the org to competently undertake.)
I ask because it is counterintuitive to me to think that the below scenario is preferable, because it seems to involve withholding useful information—but perhaps it could be considered worth it, in order for the funder to avoid creating the incentive to just “chase the money”:
- a funder deciding not to fund your org, and not telling why they made that decision.

Hugh P Feb 26, 2025, 6:37 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Open thread: January—March 2025
What’s the correct format for citing an EA Forum post?
E.g. like this:
Beckstead, N., Singer, P., & Wage, M. (2013). Preventing Human Extinction. EA Forum. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/tXoE6wrEQv7GoDivb/preventing-human-extinction
Or like this, with “Effective Altruism” instead of “EA Forum?”:
Beckstead, N., Singer, P., & Wage, M. (2013). Preventing Human Extinction. Effective Altruism. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/tXoE6wrEQv7GoDivb/preventing-human-extinction

Hugh P Dec 27, 2024, 7:01 PM
5 points
2 ∶ 1
in reply to: ClimateDoc’s comment on: Pagw’s Shortform
Mill’s point that happiness might derive from having intrinsic goals other than happiness is interesting; I do find it hard to imagine having this feeling though:

In this frame of mind it occurred to me to put the question directly to myself: “Suppose that all your objects in life were realized; that all the changes in institutions and opinions which you are looking forward to, could be completely effected at this very instant: would this be a great joy and happiness to you?” And an irrepressible self-consciousness distinctly answered, “No!”

I personally am quite confident I would experience “a great joy and happiness” if some reform happened e.g. factory farming ended at this moment, and I find it hard to imagine this not being the case. But as you suggest, this may be more likely to occur at a certain “development point” I’ve not reached yet unlike Mill.

Nor has it ever been the case for me that “My conception of my own happiness was entirely identified with this object [of being a reformer of the world]”. Though I do often wish, on a meta-cognitive level, that my happiness (which seems like almost the same thing as my “conception of my own happiness”) was much further in that direction, because then I would work much harder on doing good, even if burnout like this becomes a bit more of a risk.

Hugh P Dec 21, 2024, 3:53 PM
25 points
2 ∶ 0
on: Ten big wins in 2024 for farmed animals
I notice that one of the UK grants for alernative proteins which you cite says, “Cultured meat, insect-based proteins and proteins made by fermentation” (my emphasis). I find this quite concerning.
I didn’t previously realise the term “alternative proteins” includes insects. Has this always been the case? Is the definition contested or is a different term needed?

From the NAPIC website, they include Entocycle, “a world-leading provider of insect farming technology”, as one of their partners (though this may not be representative). Interestingly Entocycle do have two pages on insect welfare.

Hugh P Mar 19, 2024, 4:36 PM
4 points
4 ∶ 0
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: The Scale of Fetal Suffering in Late-Term Abortions
My weak intuition is that pro-life people would support anesthesia. For one reason, they may support it precisely because of the reason you give that pro-choice people do not support it (that is, the implications of moral personhood some people may infer). On the other hand, one counterexample to my intuition is the analogy to how some animal rights activists oppose welfare reforms or at least discuss them with a negative tone, due to a more absolutist or anti-incrementalist position.

But perhaps more importantly, if it’s true that pro-life people generally would support it, I would expect that to make it less tractable, because there’s a risk pro-choice people would react and be polarised against it if it was seen as a pro-life political weapon.