Hide table of contents

-25

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


2 Answers sorted by

Money is only a structure we use to measure value of items or projects...its not an end goal to achieve at all.

As long as a certain activity is anti-life or does not extend the ability to preserve life on earth, the answer will always be zero..

lol

Under which ethical system?

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This piece, from @Garrison, @Lauren Gilbert and @tomwein, is really great quick summary of the US foreign aid pause, focused on PEPFAR (the US funded AIDs reduction effort).  The most affecting aspect of the piece, for me, was the prognoses for people who would no longer receive drugs from the programme: > Perhaps those in the most immediate danger are the children of HIV-positive mothers. PEPFAR currently supports around 680,000 pregnant women with ARV treatment—without access to these drugs, some 20-40 percent of them will transmit HIV to their babies. Without ARV treatment, about half of those infants will die within their first two years of life, most within the first few months. We could very well return to the world of the mid-2000s, where AIDS is once again a death sentence for a large percentage of those infected with HIV. > > Nor would the consequences of ending PEPFAR stay in Africa. In up to 20 percent of individuals who inconsistently take ARVs, HIV becomes drug-resistant. It would not be long before drug-resistant HIV reached the United States, which could undermine decades of progress in HIV prevention and treatment domestically. I say this is the "most shareable" piece I've seen because it succeeds (as much as possible) in being non-partisan. The subtitle mentions US "soft power", and the title "Trump Has Put George W. Bush’s Lifesaving Legacy in Danger" gives some kudos to Bush. This is the best piece I've seen to send to a sceptical/ republican relative. This issue is extremely important and, therefore, very emotive, so it's easy to fall into writing polemic about it. I really appreciate this piece for maintaining an objective tone without being whataboutist. 
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Open Philanthropy is launching a big new Request for Proposals for technical AI safety research, with plans to fund roughly $40M in grants over the next 5 months, and available funding for substantially more depending on application quality.  Applications start with a simple 300 word expression of interest and are open until April 15, 2025. Apply now Overview We're seeking proposals across 21 different research areas, organized into five broad categories: 1. Adversarial Machine Learning * *Jailbreaks and unintentional misalignment * *Control evaluations * *Backdoors and other alignment stress tests * *Alternatives to adversarial training * Robust unlearning 2. Exploring sophisticated misbehavior of LLMs * *Experiments on alignment faking * *Encoded reasoning in CoT and inter-model communication * Black-box LLM psychology * Evaluating whether models can hide dangerous behaviors * Reward hacking of human oversight 3. Model transparency * Applications of white-box techniques * Activation monitoring * Finding feature representations * Toy models for interpretability * Externalizing reasoning * Interpretability benchmarks * More transparent architectures 4. Trust from first principles * White-box estimation of rare misbehavior * Theoretical study of inductive biases 5. Alternative approaches to mitigating AI risks * Conceptual clarity about risks from powerful AI * New moonshots for aligning superintelligence We’re willing to make a range of types of grants including: * Research expenses (compute, APIs, etc.) * Discrete research projects (typically lasting 6-24 months) * Academic start-up packages * Support for existing nonprofits * Funding to start new research organizations or new teams at existing organizations. The full RFP provides much more detail on each research area, including eligibility criteria, example projects, and nice-to-haves.  Read more We want the bar