Comments
I vote mainly based on the first
More from the author
Curated and popular this week
65
This is a crosspost from the new Animal Welfare Alignment Newsletter by Anima International. You can subscribe on Substack if you are interested in following these efforts. Audio reading also available on Substack.
The goals of this post are to:
1. Raise a question I see as crucially important to the goal of aligning AI to animal welfare...
“How long have you been v*g*n?”
This is one of the most common icebreakers at animal protection events. It’s a baseline assumption, and it mostly holds true: if you’re out advocating for animals not to be tortured or abused, realistically these days you are v**n, or close. And it makes for good conversation. It seems fairly safe to assume when you meet strangers.
But this assumption is hurting the movement in a way which we don’t always notice: someone new comes into the sp...
Summary
Back in November 2023 I posted here to launch Spiro and raise our first $198k. Two and a half years later this is an update and a fundraiser for the next step.
The short version: we've now reached over-5,900 people with TB preventive medicine, including over 3,000 children under five years old. Our early results have held up well an...
Recent opportunities to take action
I prefer voting based on value. The other two voting strategies strike me as uncooperative. If you only downvote when you think a score is too high / upvote when you think it's too low, then you're canceling out someone else's vote. And if you don't vote when you think a score is good, then you're causing someone else's vote to have zero counterfactual value (because you will upvote if and only if someone else doesn't upvote).
Thanks for commenting, Michael!
I share your concerns, and historically I have been voting based solely on the 1st approach. However, I have recently started to think about the 2nd and 3rd, as I think neglectedness considerations should have some weight. If I see 2 posts which (to me) are roughly equally valuable, one has 20 karma, and the other has 200, it seems that upvoting the former is more pressing than upvoting the latter.
It is true that votes are fungible in the 2nd and 3rd approaches. However, that also applies to donations to different charities.
Is there really a tradeoff? Once you've read a post/comment and thought about what its karma should be, it takes hardly any time to click the button! I agree it might be altruistic of you to read low-karma posts sometimes and upvote them if they're good, but I don't think "selecting what to read" is what's being described here
I did not mean to suggest the time to vote was an important factor.
I agree. My comment above was not clear, but with "if I see 2 posts" I did not mean "if I see 2 posts on the frontpage, and I am deciding on which to click". I meant that if I happen to read 2 recent posts at roughly the same time (often I am checking the posts from the EA Forum Digest), and they feel similarly good to me, I would be more likely to upvote the one with less karma.
For tags, I give more weight to the 3rd method. For example, if I only know a little about a topic, I will not strongly upvote/downvote the tag on a given post, because I do not feel confident about its value relative to other posts with the same tag.
I'm the same way with tags, I like posts to be accurately placed within the tag