That's what I meant by interest-indexed, unless that isn't capturing your concern?

Got it. I would give you 1 k$, and, if I won, you would give me 2 k$ times the ratio between the unit value of global stocks at the end of 2034 and time of my initial transfer.

What is your P(existentially bad outcomes) in the next 10 years? As maybe a starting point for finding a bet that sounds good to you.

The bet above sounds good to me. The unit value of global stocks can be that of Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS - (USD) Accumulating, which is the one I invest in. I would want to make a post to formalise the bet. Let me know if you want to move forward.

So when assessing if an animal lives a good life we should not only consider the circumstances but how they experience it.

What ultimately matters for me is just the subjetive experience of the animals. I only care about the circumstances because they inform the subjective experiences.

So I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most insects are happier than most humans.

Me neither. However, there are good arguments for wild invertebrates having not only positive, but also negative lives.

They didn't mention torture in the welfare paper, probably because it is a combination of humiliation/pain/helplessness. For the way they described it, yes I would.

Which paper are you referring to? Are you referring to WFI's page about pain intensities? Here is how they describe excruciating pain.

Excruciating. All conditions and events associated with extreme levels of Pain that are not normally tolerated even if only for a few seconds. In humans, it would mark the threshold of Pain under which many people choose to take their lives rather than endure the Pain. This is the case, for example, of scalding and severe burning events. Behavioral patterns associated with experiences in this category may include loud screaming, involuntary shaking, extreme muscle tension, or extreme restlessness. Another criterion is the manifestation of behaviors that individuals would strongly refrain from displaying under normal circumstances, as they threaten body integrity (e.g. running into hazardous areas or exposing oneself to sources of danger, such as predators, as a result of Pain or of attempts to alleviate it). The attribution of conditions to this level must therefore be done cautiously. Concealment of Pain is not possible.

Torture is not mentioned above, but my quote above ("severe burning in large areas of the body, dismemberment, or extreme torture") is from Cynthia Schuck-Paim, WFI's research director. In any case, if many prefer ending their lives over excruciating pain, it makes sense to assume they would prefer avoiding 10 min of excruciating pain over losing 24 h of fully healthy life?

I don't think that euthanasia would always go against her preferences. (I'm imagining my mum's dog here.) Humans definitely use euthanasia when it is available to them, and I certainly would. Also, in the wild she would hardly find herself in a situation where she is slowly decaying. 

Imagine a pet is born with some disease that allows them to live a long live, but one which has way more suffering than happiness. Do you think such pet should be euthanised? If yes, do you think its birth should ideally have been avoided in the 1st place? If yes, would you apply the same reasoning to wild animals which experience way more suffering than happiness (I guess some do)?

Hi Marcus.

(We also expect to place some bets on non-AI opportunities that are unusually strong.)

Are you open to funding research on the sentience of nematodes? This is one of the “Four Investigation Priorities” mentioned in section 13.4 of chapter 13 of the book The Edge of Sentience by Jonathan Birch.

How about funding research on the time trade-offs between the pains defined by the Welfare Footprint Institute (WFI) by surveying people who have recently experienced excruciating pain? I think people suffering from cluster headaches would be good candidates. Ambitious Impact (AIM) currently estimates suffering-adjusted days (SADs) assuming that excruciating pain is 48.0 (= 11.7/0.244) times as intense as hurtful pain (you can ask Vicky Cox for the sheet), which I believe is very off. It implies 16 h of "awareness of Pain is likely to be present most of the time" (hurtful pain) is as bad as 20.0 min (= 16/48.0*60) of "severe burning in large areas of the body, dismemberment, or extreme torture" (excruciating pain). Here is a thread where I discussed AIM's pain intensities with the person responsible for their last iteration.

How about funding research on welfare comparisons across species? In Bob Fischer’s book about comparing welfare across species, the tentative sentience-adjusted welfare range of shrimps is 8.0 % of that of humans. However, if the sentience-adjusted welfare range is proportional to "individual number of neurons"^"exponent", and "exponent" can range from 0 to 2, which I consider reasonable, the sentience-adjusted welfare range of shrimp can range from 10^-12 (= (10^-6)^2) to 1 times that of humans.

The prospects of winning or losing money usually leads to people investigating their views more.

This is widely believed to be true outside effective altruism too.

I would easily be ok with 10 minutes of excruciating pain for 24 hours of fully healthy life

Would you prefer 10 min of "severe burning in large areas of the body, dismemberment, or extreme torture" (excruciating pain) over losing 24 h of fully healthy life (ignoring the indirect effects if the excruciating pain; it would probably lead to death, and therefore result in a loss of life which is worse than losing 24 h of fully healthy life)?

If we take the conservative 10 minutes per 24 hours that I would accept, that would make me 600 times less pain sensitive than you are. So if I take the very same line of thinking that led you to believe there is a 50% chance of them having a net positive life, I would probably conclude there is a 99% chance of them having net positive lives.

If I were 600 times as sensitive to pain as you, I guess I would also be 600 times as sensitive to pleasure. So my guess for the probability that wild invertebrates have positive/negative would arguably not change.

I am again advocating for other ethical frameworks like preference utilitarianism: They clearly show a preference to live so giving them a home by habitat preservation or rewilding is good while killing them is bad.

Could euthanising pets be good for them, even if it goes against their preferences?

Hi Jen. Thanks for sharing that. Keeping our identity small is a way to counter it.

I'm not a paid sub to Nuno so I can't see.

Me neither.

I don't expect we will see less than $5M of forecasting grants done by CG in 2026 or 2027 though

CG's Forecasting Fund granted 15.9 M$ in 2025.

Hi Guy. The bets would be directly beneficial if people who are more accurate donate to more cost-effective interventions? In addition, I wonder whether the discussions of bets involving donations, and investments could have higher quality than ones of forecasting questions without money on the line. The prospects of winning or losing money usually leads to people investigating their views more.

Hi Siobhan. Thanks for the post. I broadly agree with the sentiment you express in it.