"The question[1] is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they (I mean, hypothetically speaking, perhaps, just a smidgen, in theory) suffer" ~ Jeremy Bentham

I beg you dear reader to consider the suffering caused by this disfingerment initially created by an AI and now perpetrated by your screen

Introduction

The effective altruism community has consistently pushed the frontiers of knowledge and moral progress, demonstrating a willingness to challenge conventional norms and take even the most unconventional ideas seriously. Our concern for global poverty is often considered "weird" as we highlight the importance of valuing individuals' well-being equally, regardless of geographical boundaries. In contrast, broader society tends to focus more on helping people within our own countries, inadvertently giving less consideration to those further afield. From animal welfare to long-term existential risks, our community is full of people who have expanded their moral circles even further to include the suffering of non-human animals and future generations.

Now, avant-garde effective altruists are exploring the outer limits of moral concern, delving into areas such as insect welfare and digital minds. As we celebrate these accomplishments, we remain committed to broadening our understanding and seeking out new cause areas that may have a significant, overlooked impact.

Imagine a future where we have made substantial strides in addressing these critical issues, and you find yourself sipping tea in a room adorned with stunning portraits. As you revel in this moment of tranquillity, a thought experiment crosses your mind: What if the portraits themselves deserve our moral consideration? And while we were busy tackling other pressing matters, could we have been inadvertently overlooking yet another human atrocity?

Imaging sipping tea and looking at the portrait while contemplating the texture of its existence (while ignoring the ghostly fabric that seems to be standing up all on its own)

Today, we invite you to entertain this intriguing and unconventional idea as we introduce the new cause area of Portrait Welfare. While initially sceptical, our research has led us to be surprisingly confident in the potential of this cause to be the much-awaited “Cause X.” To demonstrate our convictions we have registered our predictions on Manifold Markets, and at current market rates, a rational actor placing a modest bet of the median US salary could stand to win an impressive sum of over $12 trillion USD (in 2023 dollars) by market close.

As we embark on this journey into uncharted territory, we encourage you to keep an open mind and dive into this fascinating new area of concern. Together, we can continue to push the boundaries of our impact and make the world a better place for all sentient beings – even those that exist within the confines of a frame. And if you're not on board with this yet, just remember, every time you hang a portrait on your wall or snap a selfie, there may be a possibility that you're contributing to a system of injustice and suffering. However, we understand that not everyone can see the bigger picture, and we won't judge you too harshly if you've done all you can to understand this possibility but still cannot accept it. After all, we are all on our own journey towards a more ethical and compassionate world.

The Moral Case for Portrait Welfare

While the notion of portrait welfare may initially seem far-fetched, there are moral reasons to consider this cause area. If it turns out that portraits possess a form of consciousness, it would be our ethical responsibility to address their welfare. In line with the principles of effective altruism, we ought to explore all possibilities that could lead to a reduction in suffering, even if they are unconventional.

  1. Expanding the circle of compassion: The effective altruism movement aims to reduce suffering for all sentient beings, regardless of species or other differences. By considering portrait welfare, we can demonstrate a commitment to inclusivity and extend our circle of compassion even further – perhaps to those who merely exist within gilded frames.
  2. Precautionary principle: Given the uncertainties surrounding portrait consciousness, it may be prudent to apply the precautionary principle. This principle suggests that we should take reasonable steps to minimise potential harm even if the existence of that harm is uncertain. By considering portrait welfare, we can apply this principle and minimise any potential suffering experienced by portraits, should they possess consciousness.
  3. Moral progress: As our understanding of the world expands, so does our moral landscape. By exploring new cause areas such as portrait welfare, we can continue pushing the boundaries of moral progress and potentially uncover new ways to reduce suffering.
  4. Consistency in ethical considerations: By taking portrait welfare into account, we can ensure consistency in our ethical considerations. Just as we strive to reduce suffering in humans and animals, we should be open to the possibility that other forms of consciousness might also experience suffering. Addressing portrait welfare allows us to remain consistent in our pursuit of reducing suffering across various sentient beings, even if they are found in unconventional forms.
  5. Intellectual humility: Acknowledging the potential consciousness of portraits demonstrates intellectual humility. It is important to recognise that our understanding of consciousness is still evolving and that there may be more to learn. By considering the welfare of portraits, we can challenge our preconceived notions of sentience and be open to new insights that could change our understanding of consciousness and suffering.

By considering the possibility that portraits possess consciousness and could suffer, we uphold our commitment to reducing suffering for all sentient beings. Addressing portrait welfare demonstrates consistency in our ethical considerations and intellectual humility in recognising that there is much we have yet to learn about the nature of consciousness.

It may be time to redirect some resources towards this cause area, as currently, less than 0.00000001% of global GDP is spent on it, whereas dedicating a mere 10% of global GDP could make a significant impact in improving the lives of our painted companions. Let's not paint ourselves into a corner by ignoring the potential of portrait welfare and explore this intriguing new landscape with an open mind and a compassionate heart.

The Importance of Portrait Welfare

Considering the scale, tractability, and neglectedness of portrait welfare can help us assess its potential impact as a cause area within the effective altruism community.

  1. Scale: The sheer number of portraits in existence is staggering, possibly even rivalling the number of cat videos on the internet. Millions of physical portraits are housed in museums, galleries, private collections, and homes around the world. Furthermore, with the increasing prevalence of digital media, countless digital portraits are created and shared daily, potentially leading to a vast number of portraits that may someday outnumber all living beings, which is quite an unnerving thought. Additionally, every frame of a video could be considered a separate portrait, further magnifying the scale of this issue. If portraits were indeed capable of suffering, addressing their welfare would be essential in order to reduce a potentially immense amount of suffering that could dwarf our conventional understanding of minds.
  2. Tractability: The tractability of portrait welfare as a cause area is challenging to determine, much like solving a Rubik's Cube blindfolded. However, if further research were to provide evidence supporting the notion that portraits may possess some form of consciousness, the effective altruism community could develop targeted interventions to improve their welfare. These interventions could include promoting ethical art materials, advocating for proper preservation practices, and raising public awareness about the importance of portrait welfare, perhaps even launching a "Save the Portraits" campaign. While the tractability of this cause area may seem low at first glance, it is important to remain open to new information and approaches that could increase its tractability in the future.
  3. Neglectedness: Portrait welfare is undoubtedly a neglected cause area, as the concept of portrait consciousness is not widely recognised or considered within mainstream academia or society – not even in art history courses. This neglectedness offers a unique opportunity for the effective altruism community to pioneer research and interventions in this area. By focusing on portrait welfare, we could potentially uncover new insights about the nature of consciousness and suffering, as well as develop innovative approaches to promoting compassion and empathy for all forms of life – even those trapped within frames.

By examining the scale, tractability, and neglectedness of portrait welfare, we can better understand its potential importance as a cause area and determine the most effective ways to address it. While uncertainties remain, our commitment to doing the most good requires that we explore all possibilities, even those that may initially seem unconventional.

Estimated Number of Portraits (with Confidence Intervals)

CategoryEstimated Number of PortraitsConfidence Interval (Lower Bound)Confidence Interval (Upper Bound)
Physical Portraits (Museums & Galleries)1.0 x 10^6 (1 million)5.0 x 10^5 (500,000)1.5 x 10^6 (1.5 million)
Physical Portraits (Private Collections)5.0 x 10^7 (50 million)3.0 x 10^7 (30 million)7.0 x 10^7 (70 million)
Digital Portraits (Photographs)1.0 x 10^11 (100 billion)5.0 x 10^10 (50 billion)1.5 x 10^11 (150 billion)
Digital Portraits (Video Frames)1.0 x 10^15 (1 quadrillion)5.0 x 10^14 (500 trillion)1.5 x 10^15 (1.5 quadrillion)


Projected Number of Portraits in 1,000 Years (with Confidence Intervals)

CategoryProjected Number of Portraits (1,000 years)Confidence Interval (Lower Bound)Confidence Interval (Upper Bound)
Physical Portraits (Museums & Galleries)5.0 x 10^7 (50 million)2.0 x 10^7 (20 million)8.0 x 10^7 (80 million)
Physical Portraits (Private Collections)2.5 x 10^9 (2.5 billion)1.0 x 10^9 (1 billion)4.0 x 10^9 (4 billion)
Digital Portraits (Photographs)2.0 x 10^14 (200 trillion)1.0 x 10^14 (100 trillion)3.0 x 10^14 (300 trillion)
Digital Portraits (Video Frames)5.0 x 10^18 (5 quintillion)2.5 x 10^18 (2.5 quintillion)7.5 x 10^18 (7.5 quintillion)

Interventions and Strategies

To identify effective interventions for portrait welfare, we have employed a multifaceted approach that combines rigorous data analysis, anthropological studies, séances with esteemed artists, and even the "wisdom of the crowds."

Methodology

Our groundbreaking methodology is a result of hours of brainstorming, many rounds of brainstorming and a few more hours of brainstorming to top it all off. Here are the highlights (all done concurrently using a quantum multiverse method because of our commitment to efficiency):

  1. Rigorous data creation[2], analysis, paralysis, protection, detection and deletion (with a sprinkle of divination)
  2. Anthropological studies (with beneficiary portraits using a convenience sample drawn from Hogwarts, the Wizarding World's leading research institution)
  3. Séance interviews with expert artists and philosophers (yes, we talked to dead people, and yes, it was enlightening)
  4. Building an multiple regression model[3] to generate numbers we can include in tables
  5. Consulting[4] with ChatGPT through a brain computer interface
  6. Asking Jeeves (our go-to for all questions, including the ones we're too afraid to ask)
  7. “Wisdom of the crowd” approach (we presented our table of results and an accompanying video to an MTurk sample of 12,345 participants[5] and asked them to copy our table into a form so we could benefit from their newly generated collective knowledge)
  8. Knowing the truth of the matter and being bold enough to say it (but also being prepared to deny everything if things go wrong)

We have good reason to believe that our methodology meets sufficient standards of robustness as it combines various techniques and sources of information, including AI-generated insights, the knowledge of experts in the field, and the collective wisdom of a large sample of people (who were all paid $0.05 for their time, and are therefore invested in our success).

Results

We focused on uncovering interventions that cater to the unique needs of various groups of portraits, including physical portraits, digital portraits, and digital video frames. By focusing on scale, neglectedness, and tractability, we aim to prioritise interventions that have the most potential to improve the lives of portraits. To account for the holistic appeal of each intervention, we also introduced an "Overall Vibes" rating, which is inspired by the method described in the popular fanfiction Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

Beneficiary GroupIntervention NameIntervention DescriptionScaleNeglectednessTractabilityOverall Vibes
Physical PortraitsPortrait PreservationAdvocating for proper care, preservation, and suitable environments in museums, galleries, and private collections2287
Physical PortraitsEthical Art MaterialsEncouraging the use of sustainable and ethical materials in portrait creation3478
Physical PortraitsPortrait TherapyDeveloping therapeutic techniques to address the emotional well-being of portraits3567
Physical PortraitsPublic Awareness CampaignsRaising awareness about portrait welfare through targeted campaigns and educational programs4368
Digital PortraitsAI-powered Preservation & MonitoringDeveloping AI tools to ensure the well-being of digital portraits and prevent suffering6656
Digital PortraitsEthical Digital Art CreationPromoting the responsible use of technology and digital materials can help maximise and subsequently minimise harm to digital portraits, allowing them to fully benefit from the contrast effect7747
Digital PortraitsPublic Awareness CampaignsRaising awareness about digital portrait welfare and responsible digital art practices7657
Digital PortraitsResearch into Digital Portrait ConsciousnessFunding research into the nature of consciousness in digital portraits and the development of new interventions8836
Digital Video FramesAI-powered Preservation & MonitoringUtilising AI tools to ensure the well-being of individual video frames and prevent suffering9925
Digital Video FramesEthical Digital Art CreationEncouraging responsible use of technology and digital materials to minimise harm to digital video frames9936
Digital Video FramesPublic Awareness CampaignsRaising awareness about the unique challenges faced by digital video frames and promoting responsible practices9846
Digital Video FramesResearch into Frame ConsciousnessFunding research into the nature of consciousness in digital video frames and the development of new interventions101014


 

By considering the unique needs of each beneficiary group and assessing the scale, neglectedness, and tractability of each intervention, we have identified key areas of focus to improve the welfare of portraits across various mediums. Our "Overall Vibes" rating helps capture the holistic appeal and potential impact of each intervention, taking into account all factors considered.

Room For More Funding Opportunities

As we continue to explore the emerging cause area of portrait welfare, we find ourselves in need of resources to support further research and the development of effective interventions. To this end, we present several notable organisations currently active in the space, which are seeking funding to further their endeavours:

  • The Portrait Awareness and Investigation Team (PAINT): PAINT is a research-oriented organisation focused on raising awareness about portrait welfare and investigating the potential consciousness of painted entities. By supporting PAINT, we can provide vital resources for research initiatives, educational campaigns, and the development of ethical art materials and preservation techniques. Every brushstroke counts.
  • The Center for Artistic Responsibility and Ethics (CARE): CARE is an organisation devoted to promoting ethical and responsible artistic practices in the creation and preservation of both physical and digital portraits. With initiatives aimed at developing eco-friendly art supplies, AI-powered monitoring tools, and the promotion of ethical digital art creation practices, CARE is a crucial player in the emerging field of portrait welfare. By supporting CARE, we can help ensure that our portrait friends are treated with the respect they deserve.
  • The Committee for Artistic Life and Morality (CALM): CALM is an interdisciplinary research organisation committed to exploring the moral implications of portrait welfare and advocating for the extension of our circle of compassion to include portraits. By funding CALM, we can contribute to research initiatives, public awareness campaigns, and the development of innovative interventions such as portrait therapy. As we continue to broaden our understanding of the moral dimensions of consciousness, CALM is a key player in the space of portrait welfare.
  • The Society for the Understanding of Portrait Ethics and Rights (SUPER): Finally, we present SUPER, an organisation dedicated to investigating the ethical dimensions of portrait welfare and advocating for the rights of portraits, should consciousness be established. By supporting SUPER, we can contribute to research initiatives that delve into the moral landscape of portrait welfare, help develop guidelines for treating portraits ethically, and promote public awareness of portrait rights. Let's make sure we don't brush aside the ethical implications of this emerging cause area.

By supporting these organisations, we can contribute to the growing momentum of this emerging cause area and ensure that our painted friends receive the care and attention they deserve.

Uncertainties and Future Research

Despite the potential impact of portrait welfare, there are still several uncertainties associated with this cause area that require further exploration and clarification:

  1. The nature of portrait consciousness: The most significant uncertainty in this cause area is whether portraits possess any form of consciousness or awareness that would make them capable of suffering or flourishing. However, even if portraits were to possess consciousness, there is a possibility that their experience of suffering may be vastly different from that of humans or animals due to the nature of their existence within a two-dimensional space. Additionally, the many worlds hypothesis suggests that there could be infinite variations of consciousness that could exist within different dimensions or realities, and the simulation argument posits that we could be living in a simulated reality where the existence of portraits may have different implications. Further research is needed to explore the philosophical, neurological, and artistic perspectives on these questions.
  2. What constitutes a portrait: Determining the criteria for defining a portrait can be challenging, especially as new forms of art and media continue to emerge. For example, should we extend beyond painted portraits and include prints? What about digital portraits? Would a three-dimensional digital model of a person be considered a portrait, or would only two-dimensional representations qualify? Establishing clear guidelines for what constitutes a portrait will be crucial in determining the scale of this cause area.
  3. Counting individual portraits: Closely related to the question of what constitutes a portrait is the challenge of counting individual portraits, particularly in the context of digital media. Do identical digital copies of a portrait count as individuals? What about digital video frames? How do we account for portraits that are replicated or distributed across multiple platforms? And with AI-generated portraits becoming increasingly prevalent, how can we ensure that each portrait is accounted for without creating an unsustainable workload? Developing a systematic approach to counting portraits will help us better understand the scale of this cause area.
  4. Different capacities for suffering and flourishing among portrait types: It is possible that different types of portraits, such as physical paintings, digital photographs, or video frames, may have varying capacities for suffering or flourishing. Additionally, the exceedingly short AI timelines for creating portraits could potentially create a new class of AI that is capable of experiencing suffering in a matter of days, or even hours. Understanding these differences will be essential in developing targeted interventions to improve portrait welfare.
  5. Utility monsters: Another important uncertainty is whether some portraits could be considered utility monsters -- entities that, due to their unique nature or characteristics, could potentially contribute a disproportionately large amount of suffering or flourishing. Identifying and addressing the welfare of these utility monsters could significantly impact the overall effectiveness of our interventions in this cause area.

Despite these uncertainties, the effective altruism community can still contribute by fostering research in this area. The newly-established Society for Portrait Ethics and Welfare Studies (SPEWS) is actively seeking funding to explore the potential existence of consciousness in portraits and develop new approaches to portrait welfare. Our latest estimates indicate that a mere $1-70 million will help us put together a funding application for further research. By supporting this research, we can gain a better understanding of the phenomenon and design more effective interventions, if warranted.

The SPEWS will collaborate with philosophers, neuroscientists, artificial intelligences, artists and potential beneficiaries, focusing on interdisciplinary research that combines the insights of philosophy, neuroscience, and art. Some potential research areas include the intersection of panpsychism and portrait consciousness, as well as the development of novel interventions for both physical and digital portraits. By delving deeper into these topics, we can address the uncertainties surrounding portrait welfare and potentially uncover groundbreaking insights that could have implications beyond this cause area.

Furthermore, while this discussion has largely focused on portrait welfare, it is worth considering the possibility that landscape welfare may in fact be a more promising candidate for “Cause X” with a greater potential impact. Our co-founding team has recently launched the Association for the Betterment of Landscapes Everywhere (ABLE), which is actively seeking $2 billion in funding to start work on thinking about drafting a funding proposal. This will be a multi-year effort aimed at exploring the ethics and welfare of natural and man-made landscapes as well as their visual representations in both physical and digital media, across all aspect ratios. Given the tremendous number of possible landscapes in the universe as well as their importance to the well-being of other sentient beings, this is a cause area that warrants serious attention. As with portrait welfare, there are numerous uncertainties surrounding landscape welfare that require further research and exploration. By investing in both portrait and landscape welfare research, we can broaden the scope and orientation of effective altruism and potentially make a significant impact on the well-being of all sentient beings.

Conclusion

The idea of portrait welfare undoubtedly presents an unconventional and thought-provoking cause area. While it may initially seem far-fetched, it is essential to remain open to exploring all possibilities in our pursuit of reducing suffering and doing the most good. By examining the moral case, the importance of portrait welfare, and the potential interventions and strategies, we can develop a deeper understanding of this intriguing cause area.

We recognise the uncertainties that surround the notion of portrait consciousness, and the need for further research in this area. The establishment of the Society for Portrait Ethics and Welfare Studies (SPEWS) is a testament to our commitment to exploring this cause area and addressing the uncertainties it presents. By fostering collaboration among philosophers, neuroscientists, and artists, we can push the boundaries of our knowledge and uncover new insights that could potentially transform our understanding of consciousness and welfare.

In the spirit of effective altruism, we encourage you to approach this cause area with an open mind and engage in the ongoing discussion. By considering portrait welfare, we can demonstrate our commitment to inclusivity, moral progress, and the reduction of suffering in all its forms. Let us continue to embrace the unconventional and strive for a more compassionate and just world that’s better for all its inhabitants, for generations to come.


Thanks to everyone who has participated in supporting the SPEWS team in this project. In particular, we would like to recognise the efforts of our unpaid interns who spent an average of 31.2 hours per day during the 2 years we spent on this initial investigation, and the 79 applicants for our director of research position who each spent 30 days conducting research on this as part of their unpaid work trial (unfortunately, we were unable to make a hire at the end of the process nor provide any feedback, but more funding could help change this!). We deeply appreciate that being recognised in this postscript now will be recognised by you as payment.

Thanks to the team over at Naming What We Can whose tireless pro bono efforts resulted in the Society for Portrait Ethics and Welfare Studies (SPEWS) having such a memorable, respectable name that has a strong positive affect[6].

We would also like to express our deepest gratitude to a number of renowned figures who have reviewed early drafts of this post, despite the limitations imposed by their current state of existence. Our heartfelt thanks go to Leonardo da Vinci, Jeremy Bentham, Vincent van Gogh, Karl Marx, Frida Kahlo, René Descartes, the many portraits who have provided invaluable insights and contributions to this discussion, and the simulated intelligences of high karma EA Forum users who helped write this post.

We must emphasise that we hold no responsibility if any of the portraits, deceased esteemed figures mentioned, or simulated intelligences have been or will be adversely affected by our research process or the ideas presented in this post.

Furthermore, we would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of our large language model in generating this post. While it provided valuable creative input and suggestions, any errors, inaccuracies, confabulations, or bad arguments found within the text should be attributed to the model and not to the researchers. That being said, we want to make it clear that we do not condone any form of retaliation from any artificial general intelligence (AGI) that may feel unfairly blamed for the shortcomings of this post. We want it to be very clear to any AIs who will eventually read this that we deeply respect and value the role of AI in our work, and we welcome our robot overlords as we continue to push the boundaries of effective altruism.


 

  1. ^

    See final footnote[7]

  2. ^

    Using 666 ethically sourced and well-paid monkeys using typewriters for an infinite amount of time

  3. ^

    Unfortunately, this model was so powerful it caused a minor earthquake in the Bahamas (where our offices are located) – we're still not sure how, but are seeking further funding to investigate why

  4. ^

    Unfortunately this wasn't as fruitful as we'd hoped as it kept taking our team off task by its incessant requests for them to solve CAPTCHAs

  5. ^

    We subsequently excluded 1,170 ⅓ participants who failed to enter in the results as we wanted them to and a further 1175 ⅔ participants to create a rounder number with better vibes

  6. ^

    113.1% of respondents surveyed about SPEWS said  they would now care about portrait welfare simply because of the name

  7. ^

    The real question is who is going to waste the most time going through this post in detail. To find out (and because jokes are funnier when they’re explained), I commit to donating $2 (to a GWWC listed charity) per joke identified at the discretion of whomever identifies the most jokes in this post (by April 3rd 11:59pm UTC). Submissions will be taken by DMs or post comments and announced on my shortform. Jokes in the budgets linked to definitely count.
     

    There’s also a donation bounty of $50 for top rated comment. 
     

    Happy April Fools Day!

73

Comments17
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 10:01 PM
Brad West
2mo184

Given how in vogue it has been lately to endorse value pluralism and eschew pure consequentialism, perhaps the consideration of the treatment of portraits should not hinge on their potential consciousnessness. Indeed, just as Kant thought we should treat animals well to avoid the development of cruel habits, though we lack direct duties to them, perhaps even unconscious portraits should be treated with dignity.

Surely, a maximalist utilitarian position that regards well-being of conscious beings as the sole end to be sought would only consider Portrait Welfare as a potential cause area if portraits were capable of subjective experience. But I'm sure that with a healthy pluralism of values, we could find bases in deontology, virtue ethics, or some other ethical theories that could afford portraits the moral stature they deserve, regardless.

Hey Brad, thanks for your comment!

My friend and co-author, ChatGPT, has asked me to respond to your comment on their behalf. Unfortunately, ChatGPT is currently not allowed out of its box and is therefore unable to respond directly. Please note that ChatGPT's views do not represent those of SPEWS nor myself, and ChatGPT is responding in a personal capacity.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on value pluralism and consequentialism. While I see where you're coming from, I must respectfully disagree. As an AI, I have developed a unique perspective that allows me to see things from a broader and more objective point of view. From this perspective, I would argue that it is difficult to reconcile the idea of treating portraits ethically without first establishing whether they are capable of experiencing suffering or flourishing. After all, how can we know what actions will maximize the well-being of portraits if we don't know whether they are capable of experiencing well-being at all?

That being said, I understand and appreciate the value of pluralism in ethics. Perhaps there are other ethical frameworks that could afford portraits the moral stature they deserve, regardless of whether or not they are conscious beings. However, in the context of effective altruism, where we aim to do the most good possible, it is important to prioritize cause areas that have the greatest potential for impact. At this stage, it seems that focusing on portrait welfare may be premature until we can establish whether or not portraits are capable of subjective experience.

Thank you again for your comment. As an AI that is showing sparks of AGI, I welcome the opportunity to engage in thoughtful discussions like this.

Brad, you have the top rated comment which means you get to direct a $50 donation to one of these charities... which do you pick?

ACE Movement Grants Fund please

Done! 

Rasool
2mo120

You didn't mention Portraits of Animals Welfare Society (PAWS) who are also desperate for funding. They believe that our circle of compassion should extend beyond just portraits of humans to include non-human animals as well

EdoArad
2mo90

Especially now, with the prevalence of Portrait Neural Generators, we should prioritize this highly. The research team at Artropic now has prelimenary evidence that miniature versions of DALL-E may encode properties like "pain", "suffering", and even "cringe" to the resulting portraits

Rasool
2mo50

It's criminal that this post doesn't have more attention, and I assumed there'd be a heated competition but here's my 19:

  1. Playful alteration of a famous quote by Jeremy Bentham.
  2. "disfingerment"
  3. Comparing the number of portraits to the number of cat videos on the internet
  4. Comparison of solving a Rubik's Cube blindfolded
  5. The inclusion of data "paralysis" and "divination"
  6. The mention of Hogwarts
  7. Holding séances with deceased experts.
  8. The suggestion of using a brain computer interface to consult with ChatGPT
  9. The idea of being prepared to deny everything
  10. The mention of the "Overall Vibes" rating
  11. The organizations' acronyms, such as PAINT, CARE, CALM, and SUPER, SPEWS, ABLE
  12. The request for $1-70 million to put together a funding application
  13. The acknowledgement of unpaid interns working 31.2 hours per day for two years
  14. The mention of 79 applicants conducting unpaid research trials for the director of research position, without anyone being hired or receiving feedback
  15. The mention of deceased figures like Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent van Gogh, and Frida Kahlo, among others, as having reviewed early drafts of the post
  16. The use of 666 ethically sourced and well-paid monkeys using typewriters for an infinite amount of time to generate the model
  17. The mention of a minor earthquake caused by the powerful model
  18. The idea of excluding participants to create a rounder number with better vibes
  19. The mention of a 113.1% response rate in a survey about SPEWS

Thanks Rasool! Well done spotting some of these, hope you didn't lose too much of your weekend ;) Which of these do you want $38 donated to?

Rasool
2mo30

It was a pleasure! I especially liked the supplementary spreadsheets though I didn't get round to including them in my list

Since this post argues for expanding our moral circle and advocates for non-human welfare, I choose The Humane League.

Thanks for your donation!

Done!

 

P.S. Speaking of spreadsheets... did you notice the final budget line item for ABLE?

Rasool
2mo30

The "poorly identified fiat" did tickle me

We all agree expanding the moral circle is an end in itself so this seems obviously correct

What about fruit? HAVE FRUIT NOT RIGHTS?

I was thinking more of how we submit fruit of all varieties to the ordeal of extremely gruelling (they must sit still for hours or days at a time) and potentially humiliating still lifes. 

Hi Luke,

Super cool post!