EA as a whole tends to maximize welfare (and you can see relevant discussion in the proposed definition of EA here). While suffering and well-being are possibly not simply opposites, something which I'm currently trying to understand, the analyses are arguably similar with the tools we have today. So ACE and GiveWell should be pretty safe bets.
Crossposted to Less Wrong
‘Like most of life’s dangers, the dangers of artificial intelligence are not easily identified from the armchair.’
J Dmitri Gallow
Epistemic status
I’m not an expert in this field, and herein I make some sweeping generalisations educated guesses about the overall...
TL;DR: EA has traditionally deprioritized climate change as a cause area. But a new report from Rethink Priorities, an EA research institute, suggests that specific Earth systems risks driven by climate change could have mortality impacts comparable to major global health burdens, on top of the known damages of climate change.
The report finds that research and governance work on ‘Earth Systems Stabilization’ to establish whether safe options to address th...
EA as a whole tends to maximize welfare (and you can see relevant discussion in the proposed definition of EA here). While suffering and well-being are possibly not simply opposites, something which I'm currently trying to understand, the analyses are arguably similar with the tools we have today. So ACE and GiveWell should be pretty safe bets.
Thinking about the long term, the Center on Long Term Risk is working with a suffering-focused ethics approach. This view can result in different cause prioritization.