Comments
More from the author
Curated and popular this week
122
BLUF:
* To determine whether AI is ‘improving exponentially’, ‘hitting the wall’, or any other claim which involves a quantity or magnitude (e.g. ‘This model was a big leap/small increment’). We need a good y-axis: an interval scale of AI capability which means +1 unit always represents the same degree of ‘how much better’, in the same way +1 degree Celsius is always the same amount of ‘how much hotter’.
* Yet there is no good y-axis for AI capability. All our...
Summary
* The animal welfare movement has already seen an influx in funding and should prepare for the possibility of more.
* The EA Animal Welfare Fund is encouraging those working in animal advocacy to actively set aside time and resources now to concretely plan for scaling sustainably, and we’ll support you in doing that.
* We’re requesting advocates set concrete ambitious goals and submit plans t...
Public service announcement
1. Applications are now open for our first ever round of the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program dedicated exclusively to animal welfare. Learn more about what’s different this round here and apply...
Recent opportunities to take action
I increasingly realize just how emotionally inaccessible the concept of ethical offsetting is to most people. With regard to climate, the figure I remember from William MacAskill is that he estimates one dollar donated to Clean Air Taskforce to save 1 ton of CO2. If you take this seriously, then you basically don't need to bother with any efforts to have less waste in your personal life. (With the possible exception being your image, but only if you're a public figure.)
I think most climate people are very suspicious of charities like this, rather than or in addition to not believing in ethical offsetting. See this Wendover Productions video on problematic, non-counterfactual, and outright fraudulent climate offsets. I myself am not confident that CATF offsets are good and would need to do a bunch of investigation, and most people are not willing to do this starting from, say, an 80% prior that CATF offsets are bad.
This article just made HN. It's a report saying that 39 of 50 top offsetting programs are likely junk, 8 "look problematic", and 3 lack sufficient information, with none being found good.
re: CATF, you can look at FP's cost-effectiveness analysis of CATF's work (past, future), along with their non-cost effectiveness-based reasoning (see Why do we trust this organisation?) and their general methodology for evaluating relative impact in high-uncertainty contexts like climate (where they argue that "bottom-up cost-effectiveness analyses as well as bottom-up plausibility checks... are fundamentally insufficient for claims of high impact"), and judge for yourself. I personally think that the notion of "CATF offsets" doesn't make much sense once I drilled down to that level; if I donate to them it won't be for ethical offsetting reasons.
re: the vast majority of offsetting-oriented climate charities, I'm skeptical myself.