Hi there! Iām an EA from Madrid. I am currently finishing my Ph.D. in quantum algorithms and would like to focus my career on AI Safety. Send me a message if you think I can help :)
PabloAMC šø
Karma: 1,395
Worth noting that the mass surveillance friction point is only about domestic mass surveillance. Thus, does Anthropic believes mass surveillance of non-Americans is just fine?
Do we also have a reference for what numbers are typically good in other interventions?
But AGI provides a clear mechanism of erosion of democracy (as a country you need less of your population) and a destabilising wave due to the difference in capabilities of countries.
Iām pretty confident the EA community is underdiscussing on how to prevent global AGI powered autocracy, especially if the US democracy implodes under AGI pressure. There are two key questions here: (I) How to make the US more resilient, and (ii) how can we make the world less dependent on the US democracy resilience.
I donāt know what SAD means, probably worth defining it early on in the post.
I agree. A reason why it may be easier is that the average age of farmers is high, close to 60. This may be sufficiently high, and population sufficiently small, that standard national support schemes could bear with it.
On alternative proteins: I think the EA community could aim to figure out how to turn animal farmers into winners if we succeed with alternative proteins. This seems to be one of the largest social risks, and itās probably something we should figure out before we scale alternative proteins a lot. Farmers are typically a small group but have a large lobby ability and public sympathy.
I have thought about it for a few minutes, and while I agree with all you sayātalking to people from advocates āin their own campā will certainly lower the social costāit will still frame refraining from animal consumption as a cost. I think it would make change much easier if going vegan provided back something people sought, not just moral satisfaction. Those things can be money, pleasure, social statusā¦ but I think we need to provide something back; and something they want.
Thanks for your comment Tobias! I read and enjoy your Substack a lot
However, having been in the animal/āvegan movement for a few decades, it doesnāt strike me that the approaches you mention havenāt been tried. Both companies and NGOs have been trying to make all things veg cool for a long time...
Probably you are right, I am fairly new to the area. This is probably more visible for companies than NGOs, though.
I think many believed that this approach might be sufficient until, say, five years ago (until Beyond Meat crashed and all).
Clay Christensenās framework suggests an important problem with focusing on plant-based burgers is that they are essentially a (hopefully indistinguishable) replacement, which would mean they are attacking the incumbentās core markets and value proposition and thus would be categorised as sustaining rather than disruptive innovation. This makes it hard to displace incumbents. But many experts have surely considered this and many other considerations long ago.
I still think the issues are social to a very great extent, but maybe they have become more ideological and identity related still, to the extent that they canāt be solved in the way you suggest?
The average person that I know who has not been in touch with the animal welfare movement does not seem to place much of their identity in relation to meat. There is certainly some social consensus that is sympathetic to farmers and people living in rural areas more generally, as they would be with, e.g., doctors. This is where most farmers seem to draw their political power from, but I think this is distinct from most individual identities because animal welfare is a low saliency issue. In fact, I would argue that climate change is much more ideological and identity-related.
I donāt have any insight, but what you are proposing looks good to test out, perhaps starting small and validating the hypothesis.
SoĀcial and disĀrupĀtive inĀnoĀvaĀtion strateĀgies for alĀterĀnaĀtive proteins
What would be the motivation? Is writing a good skill to have and thus merits practising?
In the margin and within the budget allocated to AI safety, the EA community has underspent on power concentration problems and overspent on AI control.
āIt is appropriate for small donors to spend time finding small charities to supportā
For:
Larger donors typically only have the ability to study large donation opportunities.
Against:
I think most small donors (such as myself) are pretty bad at gauging the evidence in areas they are not expert in.
Perhaps a better framing is: āOn the margin, should we devote farmed animal welfare resources to improve the animals being farmed (e.g., via corporate campaigns) or devote resources to substituting farmed animals altogether via alternative proteins?ā
What about Spanish? I would be interested because I could give it as a present.
Have you considered translating it? It seems to me the typical lectors outside English speaking countries will not necessarily be fluent in that language.
I think GFI has claimed this in the past, and given their role of large coordinator of the area Iām inclined to believe their conterfactual importance. However the problem is that without a downstream model of how dollars convert into averted animal suffering, it is quite hard to prioritise between theories of change.
I donāt know about other folks but I think this is my first criticism of them as long as I can remember, both online and offline. In general I think they have been fairly responsible with AI safety, or as responsible as I would expect a company to be. But even if I did criticise them a lot, I think it would still be a valid criticism. After all, as a non American I feel quite unease about this, even if they are arguably not the main actor. In any case, I think liberal democracies should oppose mass surveillance in general.