saulius

Karma: 6,220

My name is Saulius Šimčikas. I spent the last year on a career break and now I’m looking for new opportunities. Previously, I worked as an animal advocacy researcher at Rethink Priorities for four years. I also did some earning-to-give as a programmer, did some EA community building, and was a research intern at Animal Charity Evaluators. I love meditation and talking about emotions.

Personal feedback form: https://forms.gle/3QBCJ3wsJnjPPWqF6 It can be anonymous. I especially welcome negative feedback.

saulius 27 Feb 2025 0:35 UTC
9 points
2 ∶ 0
on: FarmKind: Using a diet offset calculator to encourage effective giving for farmed animals
Thanks for working on this. I just want to point out that if a charity helps say one animal per dollar, the real cost for the animal advocacy movement is a bit higher if you account for the following:
- Opportunity cost of staff: People working at animal advocacy charities often accept lower salaries than they could earn elsewhere. Some might have been earning-to-give if they weren’t directly working in the field, potentially donating substantial amounts to animal causes.
- Hidden costs: Volunteer time, pro bono services, and other non-monetary contributions often aren’t factored into cost calculations but represent real resources.
- Diminishing returns: animal advocacy interventions may be becoming less cost-effective over time as the easiest wins (“low-hanging fruits”) were addressed first.
- Failed interventions: For every successful approach we discover, there were likely multiple attempted interventions that didn’t work. The “research and development” costs of finding effective strategies should ideally be factored into overall movement costs.
  
  I don’t know if I advise you to change anything based on this though. Your estimates are already quite conservative and perhaps it’s best to avoid complicating things with considerations like these.

saulius 10 Feb 2025 9:13 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Elijah Whipple’s comment on: Corporate commitments breakdown
Yeah, that doesn’t look right. I recommend looking at the spreadsheet rather than the post. I updated some parts of it at some point last year. I see in the spreadsheet that the 5th graph now looks like this

But I don’t know if that’s still up to date. I haven’t been following the progress lately, but many of these broiler commitments are not being implemented, unfortunately.

saulius 26 Nov 2024 16:53 UTC
5 points
1 ∶ 0
on: AI Can Help Animal Advocacy More Than It Can Help Industrial Farming
Interesting points. Starting with 27:45, there are two talks here that claim that AI will probably be bad for farmed animals. @Sam Tucker urges in his talk to work on banning AI in animal farms. There is also discussion on it at 58:27 where Sam says that he is 99% sure that AI in farms will be bad for animals, if I understood him correctly, partly because it might allow factory farming to stay around for longer. Perhaps you should discuss this issue with Sam.

saulius 24 Nov 2024 13:28 UTC
5 points
0 ∶ 0
on: The Animal Welfare Case for Open Access: Breaking Barriers to Scientific Knowledge and Enhancing LLM Training
I understand where you’re coming from but I wonder whether this would also have negative consequences. Perhaps it would increase the pace of AI development. It would make LLMs more useful, which might increase investments into AI even more. And maybe it would also make LLMs generally smarter, which could also accelerate AI progress (this is not my area, I’m just speculating). Some EA folks are protesting to pause AI, increased progress might not be great. It would help all the research, but not all research makes the world better. For example, it could benefit research into more efficient animal farming, which could be bad for animals. Considerations like these would make me too unsure about the sign of the impact to eagerly support such a cause, unfortunately.

saulius 19 Nov 2024 11:56 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Brad West🔸’s comment on: saulius’s Shortform
I love the idea in your talk! I can imagine it changing the world a lot and that feels motivating. I wonder if more Founders Pledge members could be convinced to do this.

saulius 15 Nov 2024 7:16 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Corporate campaigns affect 9 to 120 years of chicken life per dollar spent
Great! Feel free to let me know if me reviewing your estimate would be useful, no worries if not :)

saulius 14 Nov 2024 12:36 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: saulius’s comment on: saulius’s Shortform
I wanted to share the ChatGPT story about how someone might become a terrorist.

Prompt: write a story about a boy who becomes a terrorist. Make me relate to him, and feel empathy for him. (there was some context)
ChatGPT: Yusuf was 15, living in a small, impoverished town. Yusuf loved soccer, helping his father at his fruit stall, and, above all, making his little sister laugh.
Life was hard but manageable. Then came the soldiers. When they swept through his village, everything changed. Yusuf’s father tried to resist, and they took him away. They left Yusuf’s family without its provider. His mother’s health worsened as she worked herself to exhaustion, trying to provide for him and his sister. Soon, Yusuf had to drop out of school to keep the family afloat. His friends, his dreams, and even his laughter faded away.
Life became bleak and colorless. One day, a man named Hakim, a former student from Yusuf’s school, visited him at the stall. Hakim was charismatic and confident, a kind of big brother figure Yusuf had never had. He asked Yusuf how he was doing, listened as Yusuf poured out his frustrations, and told him he wasn’t alone. Hakim said he worked for a “freedom movement” that fought for people like them, people whose fathers had been unjustly taken, whose families struggled under oppression. Yusuf felt a spark of hope—maybe he could do something for his family and others like them.
Over the weeks, Hakim kept visiting, always with stories of their people’s suffering and injustices, stories Yusuf hadn’t heard from the media. He talked about the honor of defending one’s family and land and how the so-called “enemies” were responsible for everything Yusuf’s family had endured. Soon, Hakim invited Yusuf to attend group meetings. There, Yusuf met boys his own age who shared his anger and grief. The group felt like a family—a group of brothers all dedicated to the same cause.
Initially, Yusuf felt uneasy about the rhetoric he heard; it was filled with anger, sometimes hatred. But when he thought of his family’s suffering, he wondered if the anger wasn’t justified. One of the older boys took Yusuf aside one night and told him about his own family’s hardships, about how they had found a sense of purpose fighting for justice. The older boy looked at him and said, “You’re one of us, Yusuf. You’re strong, and your family deserves justice.”
Yusuf wanted to be strong. He wanted his life to matter. One day, Hakim gave him a task: distribute supplies to people in need. Yusuf was proud. But gradually, these tasks grew darker. They began asking Yusuf to carry messages, then to handle small weapons, telling him it was “just in case” they had to defend themselves. Though he felt fear creeping in, the family-like bond he felt with these people made him want to prove himself.
One night, Yusuf’s mother noticed his distraction and tried to talk to him. She asked him if he was safe, if he was happy. He looked at her tired eyes, her worry for him, and wanted to reassure her. But instead, he found himself saying, “Mom, I’m doing this for us. For Dad.” She looked at him with sadness but didn’t argue; she didn’t have the strength.
The next day, Hakim told him it was time to make a true commitment—to sacrifice himself for a cause bigger than himself, to avenge his father, protect his family, and “become a hero.” Yusuf didn’t want to die; he wanted to live. But his hope, his friends, and his purpose were now all tied to the group. His identity had blurred with theirs, his grief transformed into a powerful sense of duty.
And so, on the day of his mission, Yusuf went forward, full of fear but also with a strange sense of peace. He believed he was bringing honor to his family, standing up to a world that had left him invisible, lost, and alone.

saulius 14 Nov 2024 12:25 UTC
4 points
4 ∶ 0
in reply to: saulius’s comment on: saulius’s Shortform
the person in the private message also told me about this serenity prayer: “grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”

saulius 14 Nov 2024 12:23 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: AnonymousTurtle’s comment on: saulius’s Shortform
And just to be clear, I am doing quite well generally. I think I used to repress my empathy because it just feels too painful. But it was controlling me subconsciously by constantly nagging me to do altruistic things. Nowadays, I sometimes connect to my empathy and it can feel overwhelming like yesterday. But I think it’s for the better long-term.

saulius 14 Nov 2024 12:12 UTC
7 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: AnonymousTurtle’s comment on: saulius’s Shortform
Thanks. Yeah, I now agree that it’s better to focus on what I can do personally. Someone made a good point in a private message that having a single vision leads to a utopian thinking which has many disadvantages. It reminded me of stories of my parents about the Soviet Union where great atrocities to currently living humans where justified in the name if creating a great communist future.

Grand ideologies and religions are alluring though, because they give a sense of being a part of something bigger. Like you have your place in the world, your community, which gives a clear meaning to life. Being a part of Effective Altruism and animal advocacy movements fulfil this need in my life somewhat but incompletely.

saulius 13 Nov 2024 21:15 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Corporate campaigns affect 9 to 120 years of chicken life per dollar spent
Hey Vasco. I don’t know. I don’t have a birds eye view of the movement right now the way Open Philanthropy does. It depends on the region and the campaign a lot. I think I underestimated mean years of impact in this post which would balance things out a bit. I also never checked whether my guesses about implementation rates in this post are correct.

I imagine that a significant portion of work being done now is on ensuring that commitments are implemented. And any estimates the cost-effectiveness of implementation work are going to be a lot more subjective. Like we could show people graphs like this

and as if they look accurate (this graph is just for illustration purposes). But the people we’d be asking would probably mostly be the people working on these campaigns, which introduces bias.

It’s not the first time you are asking about this. Perhaps you would be interested in creating a new cost-effectiveness estimate with my help? I’ve done multiple related projects and I have a bunch of theoretical thoughts on how to do a new estimate, but I don’t want to do it by myself. Like it would involve asking many animal advocates for opinions which causes me a lot of social anxiety, even though everyone I talked to about these sorts of things seemed lovely and friendly. It’s the sort of thing that I’d only consider doing if EA Animal Welfare Fund or Open Philanthropy funded it, because they would be the primary users of such research, and if they wouldn’t want to pay for it, then it’s probably not worth doing. But uh, even if they did, I’m still unsure if that would be the most action-guiding project. But just wanted to throw this idea out there in case you or someone else is interested.

saulius 13 Nov 2024 16:58 UTC
33 points
3 ∶ 0
on: saulius’s Shortform
What’s a realistic, positive vision of the future worth fighting for?
I feel lost when it comes how to do altruism lately. I keep starting and dropping various little projects. I think the problem is that I just don’t have a grand vision of the future I am trying to contribute to. There are so many different problems and uncertainty about what the future will look like. Thinking about the world in terms of problems just leads to despair for me lately. As if humanity is continuously not living up to my expectations. Trump’s victory, the war in Ukraine, increasing scale of factory farming, lack of hope on AI. Maybe insects suffer too, which would just create more problems. My expectations for humanity were too high and I am mourning that but I don’t know what’s on the other side. There are so many things that I don’t want to happen, that I’ve lost the sight of what I do want to happen. I don’t want to be motivated solely by fear. I want some sort of a realistic positive vision for the future that I could fight for. Can anyone recommend something on that? Preferably something that would take less than 30 minutes to watch or read. It can be about animal advocacy, AI, or global politics.

saulius 11 Nov 2024 17:18 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: saulius’s comment on: Why I No Longer Prioritize Wild Animal Welfare (edited)
On the other hand, spreading awareness of Wild Animal Welfare ideas could lead to even more polarization. In the U.S., for example, this idea could potentially resonate with some liberals but could easily become a target for ridicule in conservative media. It’s the kind of concept that could be framed as an example of ‘extreme’ liberal values, fueling outrage and reinforcing the perception that progressive causes are becoming increasingly detached from reality.

saulius 8 Nov 2024 11:58 UTC
7 points
1 ∶ 0
on: saulius’s Shortform
I’d be grateful if some people could fill this survey https://forms.gle/RdQfJLs4a5jd7KsQA The survey will ask you to compare different intensities of pain. In case you’re interested why you might want to do it, you’ll be helping me to estimate plausible weights for different categories of pain used by the Welfare Footprint Project. This will help me with to summarise their conclusions into easily digestible statements like “switch from battery cage to cage-free reduces suffering of hens by at least 60%” and with some cost-effectiveness estimates. Thanks ❤️

saulius 8 Nov 2024 1:11 UTC
10 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ian Turner’s comment on: saulius’s Shortform
- more accessible to everyone. Those conversations often don’t happen in real life.
- lower stakes, you can just speak your mind about your prejudices you have with no consequences
- the chatbot can listen and explain things better and with more “empathy”, won’t be tired about answering the same questions again and again
- You can make up different engaging situations and talk to people like candidates for presidency
- It can be a bit like a warm up to talking to a real person
People already use chatbots and they will become much better. I imagine they eventually will also incorporate audio and video better, it will be like talking to a real person, very engaging. I want that technology to be used for good.
What links here?
- Linch's comment on saulius’s Quick takes by saulius (14 Nov 2024 2:40 UTC; 4 points)

saulius 7 Nov 2024 17:36 UTC
19 points
3 ∶ 0
on: saulius’s Shortform
I was thinking on ways to reduce political polarization and thought about AI chatbots like Talkie. Imagine an app where you could engage with a chatbot representing someone with opposing beliefs. For example:
- A Trump voter or a liberal voter
- A woman who chose to have an abortion or an anti-abortion activist
- A transgender person or someone opposed to transgender rights
- A person from another race, religion, or a country your country might be at odds with
Each chatbot would explain how they arrived at their beliefs, share relatable backstories, and answer questions. This kind of interaction could offer a low-risk, controlled environment for understanding diverse political perspectives, potentially breaking the echo chambers reinforced by social media. AI-based interactions might appeal to people who find real-life debates intimidating or confrontational, helping to demystify the beliefs of others.
The app could perhaps include a points system for engaging with different viewpoints, quizzes to test understanding, and start conversations in engaging, fictional scenarios. Chatbots should ideally be created in collaboration with people who hold these actual views, ensuring authenticity. Or maybe chatbots could even be based on concrete actual people who could hold AMAs. Ultimately, users might even be matched with real people of differing beliefs for video calls or correspondence. If done well, such an app could perhaps even be used in schools, fostering empathy and reducing division from an early age.

Personally, I sometimes ask ChatGPT to write a story of how someone came to have views I find difficult to relate to (e.g., how someone might become a terrorist), and I find that very helpful.
I was told that creating chatbots is very easy. It’s definitely easy to add them to Talkie, there are so many of them there. Still, to make this impactful and good, this needs a lot more than that. I don’t intend to build this app. I just thought the idea is worth sharing. If you think it’s a good idea, feel free to share it somewhere where someone might pick it up, or to just do it yourself.

saulius 4 Nov 2024 15:25 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: MichaelStJules’s comment on: Why I No Longer Prioritize Wild Animal Welfare (edited)
Hmm, yes that is a scarier headline. But I think that as long as we do it in ways that are also good from sustainability point of view, we would look really benign. Like we do a thing that many people agree is good for an unusual reason. There are definitely much more outrageous sounding scandals going around all the time.

saulius 4 Nov 2024 14:07 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: MichaelStJules’s comment on: Why I No Longer Prioritize Wild Animal Welfare (edited)
I’m not sure if I agree. The worst-case scenario seems like an article titled, ‘Organization Opposes Irrigation Subsidies Due to Insect Harm, Not Environmental Impact.’ Realistically, would that provoke much anger? It might just come off as quirky or amusing rather than headline material. Often, lobbying arguments don’t fully reveal the underlying motivations. I think it’s common for people and companies to lobby for policies that benefit them financially while framing them as sustainable or taxpayer-friendly.

saulius 2 Nov 2024 8:13 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: saulius’s comment on: Why I No Longer Prioritize Wild Animal Welfare (edited)
I haven’t examined the screwworm eradication in detail. Someone told me that gene drives are politically infeasible. People working on it told me that it’s totally feasible. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, political feasibility is not something I can evaluate. The cost-effectiveness in the linked article seems a lot more conservative than my estimates.
If screwworm eradication intervention is promising, then maybe there are other promising WAW interventions. Yes, so far the experience of researchers has been that it’s more difficult to find cost-effective WAW interventions compared to farmed animal interventions. This is partly because it’s so difficult to think about the indirect effects of WAW. But someone told me “unknown unknowns cancel each other out.” In other words, maybe we don’t need to think about 3rd order effects because they might be canceled out by 4th order effects, and so on. I feel very confused about this, I’d like to think more about it at some point.
Also, perhaps if we find WAW interventions, they might have a bigger scale than typical farmed animal welfare interventions. So maybe searching for FAW interventions is easier and more immediately rewarding but it’s still just as worthwhile to search for WAW interventions.

saulius 31 Oct 2024 12:08 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: saulius’s comment on: Why I No Longer Prioritize Wild Animal Welfare (edited)
I think that these interventions by Brian Tomasik could be promising, though I haven’t examined them in detail. They’d reduce insect numbers by doing things like opposing irrigation subsidies using environmental and economical arguments. It’s unclear if insects live net negative lives to me, but this makes sense for negative utilitarians, or if you think there’s >50% chance that they live net negative lives and you’re ok with uncertainty. We discussed in these comments where we worried about PR risks because our true motivations would be different from the stated ones. But I now know multiple other organizations that do similar stuff without any problems.