Hide table of contents

Summary:

  • I met an EA aligned candidate for congress.
  • I encourage US citizens to support him via donations to his campaign and volunteering.
  • I encourage people to meet with him, to give him a better understanding of effective altruism.

Introduction
I recently met Amish Shah, a member of the Arizona House of Representatives at the Animal and Vegan Summit. He's announced his campaign for federal congress, and I've been reflecting on how his work for animal rights and public health, especially given his newfound interest in the EA movement, might resonate with people in here. 

I have no direct ties or affiliations with Shah, but I'm genuinely excited about the impact of his work. 

Background on Amish Shah
Shah has been a Democratic member of the Arizona House of Representatives since January, 2023.  He has declared his candidacy for the U.S. Congress in Arizona's 1st congressional district for the 2024 elections. He has been able to move the most bills of anyone in his party: The most number of bill votes in committee, most number of bills passed through the chamber, most number of bills signed into law.

Shah's Advocacy for Animals
His work for animals comes across in the laws he's pushed for:

He has also founded the Arizona Vegetarian Food Festival. In 2020 the HSUS in Arizona named Shah “Legislator of the Year”. In 2022 he was rated “Superstar Legislator” by The Humane Voters of Arizona. 

What you can do
I encourage anyone compelled by this to reach out to Shah, offer resources, share insights, and explore ways to support his campaign.

28

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments11


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

It looks like Amish Shah will probably (barely) win the primary!

I was also excited to meet Amish and he will be attending EAGxNYC this month!

I spent 10 minutes investigating.

  • My credence that he wins the Democratic primary is 45% (pretty unstable) (he seems to be the strongest candidate so far, but there's plenty of time for more to join the race)
  • My credence that he wins the general election (conditional on winning the primary) is 50% (moderately stable)

These numbers are close to 50% (and their product isn’t too far below it), so that's good news for tractability.

[anonymous]9
2
1

I asked a Democratic political consultant (non-EA) friend about Shah and was given similar numbers—he said he thinks there’s a 20-25% chance Shah wins AZ 1 (about 50% chance of winning the Democratic nomination, and slightly lower odds in the general). He was skeptical about the benefits of having just one EA aligned house seat, though.

Before you can get dozens or even several, you need to get the first.

[anonymous]4
1
2

Yes, but if getting dozens is not a realistic goal, then there are questions re: how much you should invest in getting the first.

the not realistic is a debatable assertion

Also I don't really see a strong case for sharp non-linearities here (and if anything there might a stronger case for decreasing than increasing marginal returns). So if 50 is great, naively 1 won't be too far away from 1/50 as great. 

(But maybe I have a failure of imagination).

There, in fact, are sharp non-linearities, and they're quite important. Having 218 Representatives (a simple majority) is much more than 218 times better than having 1. Same for 290 (a supermajority). 

Right, that's a good point. I was imagining that EAs being a simple majority of Congress is just obviously an unrealistic pipe dream, but people who are optimistic about that should factor that in into their calculations.

[anonymous]3
0
1

My sense is that there are also sharp non-linearities even at small numbers. What I was told is: "In the house especially, you need to act in groups. The average member of the house has ~zero control over policy. They might get some oversight responsibilities via their committees... but five backbenchers may be able to extract a promise or two from leadership whereas one would simply lack the clout."

Curated and popular this week
Ben_West🔸
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
> Summary: We propose measuring AI performance in terms of the length of tasks AI agents can complete. We show that this metric has been consistently exponentially increasing over the past 6 years, with a doubling time of around 7 months. Extrapolating this trend predicts that, in under a decade, we will see AI agents that can independently complete a large fraction of software tasks that currently take humans days or weeks. > > The length of tasks (measured by how long they take human professionals) that generalist frontier model agents can complete autonomously with 50% reliability has been doubling approximately every 7 months for the last 6 years. The shaded region represents 95% CI calculated by hierarchical bootstrap over task families, tasks, and task attempts. > > Full paper | Github repo Blogpost; tweet thread. 
Max Taylor
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Many thanks to Constance Li, Rachel Mason, Ronen Bar, Sam Tucker-Davis, and Yip Fai Tse for providing valuable feedback. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Artificial General Intelligence (basically, ‘AI that is as good as, or better than, humans at most intellectual tasks’) seems increasingly likely to be developed in the next 5-10 years. As others have written, this has major implications for EA priorities, including animal advocacy, but it’s hard to know how this should shape our strategy. This post sets out a few starting points and I’m really interested in hearing others’ ideas, even if they’re very uncertain and half-baked. Is AGI coming in the next 5-10 years? This is very well covered elsewhere but basically it looks increasingly likely, e.g.: * The Metaculus and Manifold forecasting platforms predict we’ll see AGI in 2030 and 2031, respectively. * The heads of Anthropic and OpenAI think we’ll see it by 2027 and 2035, respectively. * A 2024 survey of AI researchers put a 50% chance of AGI by 2047, but this is 13 years earlier than predicted in the 2023 version of the survey. * These predictions seem feasible given the explosive rate of change we’ve been seeing in computing power available to models, algorithmic efficiencies, and actual model performance (e.g., look at how far Large Language Models and AI image generators have come just in the last three years). * Based on this, organisations (both new ones, like Forethought, and existing ones, like 80,000 Hours) are taking the prospect of near-term AGI increasingly seriously. What could AGI mean for animals? AGI’s implications for animals depend heavily on who controls the AGI models. For example: * AGI might be controlled by a handful of AI companies and/or governments, either in alliance or in competition. * For example, maybe two government-owned companies separately develop AGI then restrict others from developing it. * These actors’ use of AGI might be dr
Joris 🔸
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Last week, I participated in Animal Advocacy Careers’ Impactful Policy Careers programme. Below I’m sharing some reflections on what was a really interesting week in Brussels! Please note I spent just one week there, so take it all with a grain of (CAP-subsidized) salt. Posts like this and this one are probably much more informative (and assume less context). I mainly wrote this to reflect on my time in Brussels (and I capped it at 2 hours, so it’s not a super polished draft). I’ll focus mostly on EU careers generally, less on (EU) animal welfare-related careers. Before I jump in, just a quick note about how I think AAC did something really cool here: they identified a relatively underexplored area where it’s relatively easy for animal advocates to find impactful roles, and then designed a programme to help these people better understand that area, meet stakeholders, and learn how to find roles. I also think the participants developed meaningful bonds, which could prove valuable over time. Thank you to the AAC team for hosting this! On EU careers generally * The EU has a surprisingly big influence over its citizens and the wider world for how neglected it came across to me. There’s many areas where countries have basically given a bunch (if not all) of their decision making power to the EU. And despite that, the EU policy making / politics bubble comes across as relatively neglected, with relatively little media coverage and a relatively small bureaucracy. * There’s quite a lot of pathways into the Brussels bubble, but all have different ToCs, demand different skill sets, and prefer different backgrounds. Dissecting these is hard, and time-intensive * For context, I have always been interested in “a career in policy/politics” – I now realize that’s kind of ridiculously broad. I’m happy to have gained some clarity on the differences between roles in Parliament, work at the Commission, the Council, lobbying, consultancy work, and think tanks. * The absorbe