This is a special post for quick takes by SanteriK. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Sorted by Click to highlight new quick takes since:

I was quite suprised to see that 80k doesn't mention animals in their definition of 'impartial positive impact'. 

Their definition: "We define ‘impartial positive impact’ as what helps the most people live better lives in the long term, treating everyone’s interests as equal."

I'm a bit unsettled by this. I hope they actually do assign value for non-human animals. But even if that's the case, failing to mention it would be weird.

In general, I'm concerned that longtermists don't value animals enough. From my experience visiting rationalist/longermist events & spaces, veganism/vegetarianism is less popular than I would have thought. I consider vegetarianism one of the least costly virtue signals, which is why I would expect most healthy people concerned about animal welfare to be vegetarians.

det
61
13
0

On their page explaining their definition of positive impact in more depth, footnote 1 clarifies:

"We often say “helping people” here for simplicity and brevity, but we don’t mean just humans — we mean anyone with experience that matters morally — e.g. nonhuman animals that can suffer or feel happiness, even conscious machines if they ever exist."

I think it would be better to make it clearer that animals are included. But its not the case that they exclude animals from moral consideration.

https://80000hours.org/articles/what-is-social-impact-definition/

That's helpful to know, thanks! I still think the word "people" is quite misleading in the sense that people rarely associate it with nonhuman animals. I also think there might be an additional reason for not mentioning animals, which is to avoid alienating people who don't care about animals but who are interested in longtermist causes.

Hi — thanks for raising this issue.

As has been pointed out, the page where we (80k) detail the definition of “social impact” in depth is explicit that we do consider animals to be a part of impartial social impact. It’s not just in a footnote. The body of the article mentions animals and non-human sentient beings several times, including in this paragraph:

>We mean that we strive to treat equal effects on different beings’ welfare as equally morally important, no matter who they are — including people who live far away or in the future. In addition, we think that the interests of many nonhuman animals, and even potentially sentient future digital beings, should be given significant weight, although we’re unsure of the exact amount. Thus, we don’t think social impact is limited to promoting the welfare of any particular group we happen to be partial to (such as people who are alive today, or human beings as a species).

Also note that in the core argument of our article on longtermism, we strove to make clear that we’re not just concerned with future humans, but all morally relevant beings:

  1. We should care about how the lives of future individuals go.
  2. The number of future individuals whose lives matter could be vast.
  3. We have an opportunity to affect how the long-run future goes — whether there may be many flourishing individuals in the future, many suffering individuals in the future, or perhaps no one at all.

But there can be a trade off between succinctness and complete precision. Being succinct isn’t trivial — writing that is accessible and engaging can be much more effective than verbose academic prose. The page you linked to is a summary of our career planning course, so it's necessarily even more succinct than usual and doesn't delve into the details of each claim. Of course, we don’t want to mislead people about what we believe, so these kinds of decisions are always a balancing act, and we won’t always get it right.

Your post is a good reminder of how some ways of communicating these ideas can give the wrong impression, so we’re going to review whether and to what extent we should make changes to be clearer about this issue. The feedback is much appreciated!

— Cody from 80k

Thanks for the response! It's great to see that animals are mentioned in many other pages on the website. I understand the difficulty of tradeoffs between succintness and precision.

If vegetarianism was cheap it wouldn't be an effective signal. To signal some underlying property, you have to undertake actions which would be very costly if you didn't have that property.

This seems only true if you expect a decent share of our community members to be dishonest or not disvalue giving dishonest signals? Being vegetarian just to appear to care about animals, and not because you care about them nor because you're trying to cooperate with those who do, seems like it would be costly to people's consciences.

There are also indirect expected benefits to vegetarianism for nonhuman animals or other future moral patients with similarly limited agency: increasing the salience of their interests day-to-day and potentially reducing cognitive dissonance. So, it's not just a signal that someone already cares about animals, it actually also makes them care more.

I'm not sure if I follow. I guess strict veganism would be a more effective signal then, since it would be more costly? But I see even less people in the EA/rationalist circles being vegan rather than vegetarian.

Did anyone reading this ever get a suggestion from 80k to consider working on animal welfare? Is anyone working on animal welfare because of 80k?

If you "still think factory farming is an urgent problem [...]. But in the end, decided to focus on something else." I would say that it makes sense to not alienate non-vegans who could help with AI Safety by mentioning non-human animals.

I agree that it makes sense, although using the term "people" and mentioning that it means also non-human animals in a footnote seems a bit dishonest to me. I'm uncertain about the tradeoffs between telling the truth and trying to maximize impact here.

Curated and popular this week
sawyer🔸
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Note: This started as a quick take, but it got too long so I made it a full post. It's still kind of a rant; a stronger post would include sources and would have gotten feedback from people more knowledgeable than I. But in the spirit of Draft Amnesty Week, I'm writing this in one sitting and smashing that Submit button. Many people continue to refer to companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind as "frontier AI labs". I think we should drop "labs" entirely when discussing these companies, calling them "AI companies"[1] instead. While these companies may have once been primarily research laboratories, they are no longer so. Continuing to call them labs makes them sound like harmless groups focused on pushing the frontier of human knowledge, when in reality they are profit-seeking corporations focused on building products and capturing value in the marketplace. Laboratories do not directly publish software products that attract hundreds of millions of users and billions in revenue. Laboratories do not hire armies of lobbyists to control the regulation of their work. Laboratories do not compete for tens of billions in external investments or announce many-billion-dollar capital expenditures in partnership with governments both foreign and domestic. People call these companies labs due to some combination of marketing and historical accident. To my knowledge no one ever called Facebook, Amazon, Apple, or Netflix "labs", despite each of them employing many researchers and pushing a lot of genuine innovation in many fields of technology. To be clear, there are labs inside many AI companies, especially the big ones mentioned above. There are groups of researchers doing research at the cutting edge of various fields of knowledge, in AI capabilities, safety, governance, etc. Many individuals (perhaps some readers of this very post!) would be correct in saying they work at a lab inside a frontier AI company. It's just not the case that any of these companies as
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
My name is Keyvan, and I lead Anima International’s work in France. Our organization went through a major transformation in 2024. I want to share that journey with you. Anima International in France used to be known as Assiettes Végétales (‘Plant-Based Plates’). We focused entirely on introducing and promoting vegetarian and plant-based meals in collective catering. Today, as Anima, our mission is to put an end to the use of cages for laying hens. These changes come after a thorough evaluation of our previous campaign, assessing 94 potential new interventions, making several difficult choices, and navigating emotional struggles. We hope that by sharing our experience, we can help others who find themselves in similar situations. So let me walk you through how the past twelve months have unfolded for us.  The French team Act One: What we did as Assiettes Végétales Since 2018, we worked with the local authorities of cities, counties, regions, and universities across France to develop vegetarian meals in their collective catering services. If you don’t know much about France, this intervention may feel odd to you. But here, the collective catering sector feeds a huge number of people and produces an enormous quantity of meals. Two out of three children, more than seven million in total, eat at a school canteen at least once a week. Overall, more than three billion meals are served each year in collective catering. We knew that by influencing practices in this sector, we could reach a massive number of people. However, this work was not easy. France has a strong culinary heritage deeply rooted in animal-based products. Meat and fish-based meals remain the standard in collective catering and school canteens. It is effectively mandatory to serve a dairy product every day in school canteens. To be a certified chef, you have to complete special training and until recently, such training didn’t include a single vegetarian dish among the essential recipes to master. De
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
 The Life You Can Save, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting extreme poverty, and Founders Pledge, a global nonprofit empowering entrepreneurs to do the most good possible with their charitable giving, have announced today the formation of their Rapid Response Fund. In the face of imminent federal funding cuts, the Fund will ensure that some of the world's highest-impact charities and programs can continue to function. Affected organizations include those offering critical interventions, particularly in basic health services, maternal and child health, infectious disease control, mental health, domestic violence, and organized crime.