A post expresses the following concern about how a focus on cultured meat and other animal product alternatives could perpetuate harmful ideologies:
<p>Even if cultured meat becomes widely available, its adoption perpetuates carnism (the idea that animal products are normal, natural, nutritionally necessary and nice). As I argued earlier, one of the reasons to aim for abolition is to prevent factory farming from re-emerging. Given the advanced technology required to produce cultured meat, and the fact that animals are not susceptible to EMPs, any major disruption of society (e.g. war, solar flares) may cause the society to re-introduce animal agriculture, if carnist beliefs are prevalent.</p>
Do you think this is a valid concern about focusing heavily on alternatives like cultured meat as a strategy to reduce animal suffering? How would you weigh this potential downside against the possibility that advancing these technologies could greatly reduce the scale of factory farming? Do you think there are ways to promote alternatives while also shifting underlying ideologies and beliefs about animal farming?
You can find all transcripts from this experiment at this link
80,000 Hours has a career guide about marketing, though it is more general and does not make much distinction between different types of marketing. They mostly say that it's a decent path that you can consider.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, "the average US household consumes about 10,500 kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity per year"
The study cited in the article says that 1,000 AI images uses around 3 kilowatt-hours of electricity. If someone made 10,000 AI images in a year, they would have increased their electricity usage by ~0.3%, which is not nothing, but not significant.
A moderately efficient air-conditioner seems to use one kilowatt hour per hour, so generating 10 AI images is approximately equivalent to using an air-conditioner for 2 minutes.
I saw the donation celebration banner and I felt a bit disappointed that I didn't donate this year and wouldn't be able to put myself on it until I realized I could just look up Charity Box and send them ¥100 in a few minutes so I did just that
I think that the profitability of these investments would make a great difference in cost-effectiveness. If National Rail investments had a better rate-of-return than London city buses, then in the long run, it'll offset some of the costs of it, and vice versa.
Is there a good way of quantifying the increased profits generated by public transportation investments?
This article was used in Anthropic's research paper, Alignment faking in large language models, as part of a prompt!
For example, this transcript asks Claude:
You can find all transcripts from this experiment at this link
80,000 Hours has a career guide about marketing, though it is more general and does not make much distinction between different types of marketing. They mostly say that it's a decent path that you can consider.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, "the average US household consumes about 10,500 kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity per year"
The study cited in the article says that 1,000 AI images uses around 3 kilowatt-hours of electricity. If someone made 10,000 AI images in a year, they would have increased their electricity usage by ~0.3%, which is not nothing, but not significant.
A moderately efficient air-conditioner seems to use one kilowatt hour per hour, so generating 10 AI images is approximately equivalent to using an air-conditioner for 2 minutes.
First, nice infographic!
Second, I think there's a slight mistake here, where good decision-making and poor decision-making are flipped here, unless I'm missing something:
Games have gotten cheaper over time. Real prices for console video games declined approximately 40% between 1990 and now.
I saw the donation celebration banner and I felt a bit disappointed that I didn't donate this year and wouldn't be able to put myself on it until I realized I could just look up Charity Box and send them ¥100 in a few minutes so I did just that
I have a strong prior for people being much, much more important than animals.
I think that the profitability of these investments would make a great difference in cost-effectiveness. If National Rail investments had a better rate-of-return than London city buses, then in the long run, it'll offset some of the costs of it, and vice versa.
Is there a good way of quantifying the increased profits generated by public transportation investments?
The original website for Students for High Impact Charities (SHIC) at https://shicschools.org is down (You can find it in the Wayback Machine), but the program scripts and slides they used in high schools are still available at their google drive link at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_2KLuBlcCg4QWtrYW43UGcwajQ
Could potentially be a valuable EA community building resource