Thanks for the rapid and clear response, Luisa - it's very much appreciated. I'm incredibly relieved and pleased to hear that the Podcast will still be covering some non-AI stuff, even it it's less frequently than previously. It feels like those episodes have huge impact, including in worlds where we see a rapid AI-driven transformation of society - e.g. by increasing the chances that whoever/whatever wields power in the future cares about all moral patients, not just humans. 

Hope you have fun making those, and all, future episodes :) 

This is probably motivated reasoning on my part, but the more I think about this, I think it genuinely probably does make sense for 80k to try to maintain as big and broad an audience for the Podcast as possible, whilst also ramping up its AI content. The alternative would be to turn the Podcast effectively into an only-AI thing, which would presumably limit the audience quite a lot (?) I'm genuinely unsure what is the best strategy here, from 80k's point of view, if the objective is something like "maximise listenership for AI related content". Hopefully, if it's a close call, they might err on the side of broadness, in order to be cooperative with the wider EA community. 

I'd love to hear in more detail about what this shift will mean for the 80,000 Hours Podcast, specifically. 

The Podcast is a much-loved and hugely important piece of infrastructure for the entire EA movement. (Kudos to everyone involved over the years in making it so awesome - you deserve huge credit for building such a valuable brand and asset!) 

Having a guest appear on it to talk about a certain issue can make a massive real-world difference, in terms of boosting interest, talent, and donations for that issue. To pick just one example: Meghan Barrett's episode on insects seems to have been super influential. I'm sure that other people in the community will also be able to pick out specific episodes which have made a huge difference to interest in, and real-world action on, a particular issue. 

My guess is that to a large extent this boosted activity and impact for non-AI issues does not “funge” massively against work on AI. The people taking action on these different issues would probably not have alternatively devoted a similar level of resources to AI safety-related stuff. (Presumably there is *some* funging going on, but my gut instinct is that it's probably pretty low(?)) Non-AI-related content on the 80K Podcast has been hugely important for growing and energizing the whole EA movement and community. 

Clearly, though, internally within the 80k team, there's an opportunity cost to producing it, versus only doing AI content.  

It feels like it would be absolutely awful - perhaps close to disastrous - for the non-AI bits of EA, and adjacent topics, if the Podcast were to only feature AI-related content in future. It won't be completely obvious and salient that this is the effect. But, counterfactually, I think it will probably be really, really bad, going forward, to not have any new non-AI content on the Podcast. 

It would be great to hear more about plans here. My guess (hope?!) is that it might still be advantageous to keep producing a range of content, in order to keep a broader listenership/wider “top-of-funnel”? 

If the plan is to totally discontinue non-AI related content, I wonder if it would be possible to consider some steps that might be taken to ameliorate the effects of this on other issues and cause areas. For example, in a spirit of brainstorming, maybe 80k could allow other groups to record and release podcast episodes onto the 80k Podcast channel (or a new “vertical”/sub-brand of it)? (Obviously 80k would have a veto and only release stuff which they thought meets their high quality bar.) This feels like it could be really useful in terms of allowing non-AI groups to access the audience of the Podcast, whilst allowing 80k’s in-house resources to pivot to an AI focus.

Perhaps there are other cooperative options that could be considered along these lines if the plan is to only make AI content going forward. 

I should stress again my admiration and gratitude for the 80k team in creating such a cool and valuable thing as the Podcast in the first place - I'm sure this sentiment is widely shared!

You write: "While many EAs tend to focus on private philanthropy, this crisis highlights why government action is indispensable." 

I think this is totally right. Over the last few days, I think that EAs have over-focussed on "how can we donate directly to the programmes that are being cut", rather than "how can we influence governments, now and in the future, to maximise the amount of aid that goes to effective programmes". It's good that you are thinking politically about this. The leverage from influencing government policy is so high. The lessons of the last few days/weeks should be "more EAs need to think and act politically about global health and development, as that is where the real leverage is", rather than "how can we directly make up the shortfall on the ground". (Though of course I understand the very admirable instinct to do the latter...) 

If you read the news coverage of this carefully, it's clear that the FCDO has got no idea exactly which bits of the aid budget it will cut in order to fit the new spending requirements.

So I think by far the most tractable thing to campaign on would be to ask the government to protect certain areas of aid spending, and cut others instead. This actually has the chance of changing something over the next few days/weeks. 

It's awesome that you're planning to start donating to help animals. Kudos to you!

To be honest, I don't think anyone can definitively say which charity is the most effective. I think it varies according to some of your underlying values and beliefs. 

Just to note some considerations in favour of supporting Wild Animal Initiative: there are *so* many wild animals, and the field is *so* neglected. Wild animals plausibly make up the majority of total sentient experience that exists. But the field receives absolutely tiny amounts of funding. It's *even more neglected* than farmed animal advocacy, relative to the numbers of animals involved. If you take a long-termist view, it's really plausible that getting this field up and running could be incredibly valuable. 

Good catch. I think you are probably right, and that this point should be taken into consideration when thinking about whether the benefits of having the RSPCA logo on the dead animals outweighs the dis-benefits. 

The original post would probably be better written as "*At least some of* the purported benefits of accreditation would still get delivered."

I wonder, empirically, how big a difference the RSPCA vs non-RSPCA branding would make - I struggle to do anything other than guess about this. 

Perhaps there are some consumers who might not buy the animals at all if they weren't endorsed by the RSPCA - though I fear this might be a (very) low number, at least in the immediate term. Over the longer term, though, in terms of cultural shifts and norms, the number could be higher. Hhhmm...

This section of Lewis' thoughtful piece stood out to me: 

"None of this explains why the ASPCA, HSUS, and RSPCA need to be involved with the certification schemes. Animal Rising and PETA argue that their involvement serves no purpose other than to legitimize the schemes — and meat eating itself.

"I’m sympathetic to Animal Rising’s case here. They’ve likened stamping meat packages with the RSPCA’s logo to stamping cigarettes with the British Heart Foundation’s logo. I don’t think it’s quite the same, but I suspect future generations may disagree. RSPCA Assured used to be called “Freedom Food,” and I think a name like that would avoid conferring the RSPCA’s hard-earned legitimacy on a controversial product."

This feels like a potentially actionable step that the RSPCA could take. Perhaps they could spin-out their accreditation scheme, under a new branding. This might deliver the purported benefits of certification, without the immense weirdness of the RSPCA themselves being seen to endorse the commodification and slaughter of animals.  

The RSPCA's brand/legitimacy/"halo" is amazingly strong in the UK, amongst the general population. It's a much-loved, maybe even adored and treasured, national institution. It's hard to quantify, but it seems very plausible that affixing that wonderful brand reputation to packages containing the dead bodies of slaughtered animals really does do lasting damage to our collective, long-term efforts to end animal use and abuse. Having the RSPCA logo on dead animal products on the supermarket shelves seems likely to legitimise the idea that it's morally OK to eat animals - and that any animal with an RSPCA-assured logo on its dead body had an overall net-positive life, which seems far from certain. 

I wonder if spinning-out the accreditation scheme is a 'compromise' that the RSPCA might consider making? It would be a (partial) win-win for everyone. The purported benefits of accreditation would still get delivered. The Animal Rising side of the debate would be (partially) satisfied. The controversy and reputational damage to the RSPCA would be somewhat assuaged. It wouldn't be a complete "win" for anyone, but it seems like most parties to this debate would think it's an improvement on the status quo. 

Cheers, and thanks for the thoughtful post! :)

I'm not sure that the observable trends in current AI capabilities definitely point to an almost-certainty of TAI. I love using the latest LLMs, I find them amazing, and I do find it plausible that next-gen models, plus making them more agent-like, might be amazing (and scary). And I find it very, very plausible to imagine big productivity boosts in knowledge work. But the claim that this will almost-certainly lead to a rapid and complete economic/scientific transformation still feels at least a bit speculative, to me, I think...