Thanks for this comment, it felt awkward to include all veto-players in Shapley value calculation while writing the post, now I'm able to see why. For offsetting we're interested in making every single individual weakly better off in expectation compared to the counterfactual where you don't exist/don't move your body etc. so that no one can complain about your existence. So instances of doing harm can only offset by doing good. Meanwhile, Shapley doesn't distinguish between doing/allowing, therefore it assigns credit to everyone who could have prevented an outcome even if they haven't done any good.
Hi James, did you make this?
My understanding is that you donated 40% of your income last year. What a wonderful thing to do! Thank you. I'm glad you shared this here.
"Consistent Growth in Donations: There has been a consistent increase in overall donations year over year, with the EA Infrastructure and Long-Term Future funds experiencing notable growth in 2021 and 2022."
This doesn't seem right to me. Data from EA Funds dashboard:
I often think whether Benjamin Lay would be banned from the EA forum or EA events. It seems to me that the following exchange would have gotten him at least a warning within the context of vegetarianism:“Benjamin gave no peace” to slave owners, the 19th-century radical Quaker Isaac Hopper recalled hearing as a child. “As sure as any character attempted to speak to the business of the meeting, he would start to his feet and cry out, ‘There’s another negro-master!’”
I can't think of any EAs that take actions similar to the following:"Benjamin Lay’s neighbors held slaves, despite Lay’s frequent censures and cajoling. One day, he persuaded the neighbors’ 6-year old son to his home and amused him there all day. As evening came, the boy’s parents became extremely concerned. Lay noticed them running around outside in a desperate search, and he innocently inquired about what they were doing. When the parents explained in panic that their son was missing, Lay replied: Your child is safe in my house, and you may now conceive of the sorrow you inflict upon the parents of the negroe girl you hold in slavery, for she was torn from them by avarice. (Swarthmore College Bulletin)"
My diet is very similar to this one. I'm curious what other knowledgeable people think about the lack of variety in vegetables/fruits. I'm also curious about other people's takes on the lack of probiotics.
I think a more important reason is the additional value of the information and the option value. It's very likely that the change resulting from AI development will be irreversible. Since we're still able to learn about AI as we study it, taking additional time to think and plan before training the most powerful AI systems seems to reduce the likelihood of being locked into suboptimal outcomes. Increasing the likelihood of achieving "utopia" rather than landing into "mediocrity" by 2 percent seems far more important than speeding up utopia by 10 years.
Boycotting animal products is quite effective on its own. Avoiding eating one single egg prevents around 24 hours of chicken suffering in expectation, which is pretty significant. Eating one more chicken causes around 30 days of additional intense chicken suffering. Your boycott would have a very significant impact in expectation.
The problem with animal product boycotts is that we haven't discovered a robustly cost-effective way of getting other people adopt a plant-based diet. My current position on this issue is that: "It's impactful to go plant-based, but it's very hard to get other people go plant-based".
There is the following graph in the article:I think supplementing it with the following graph provides important context. It should be noted that January 2024 data is incomplete.
I would appreciate it if someone with technical competence assessed the reliability of this study and its findings.