Thanks so much for all your contributions Lizka! :) I really appreciated your presence on the forum, like a friendly, alive, and thoughtful soul that was attending to and helping grow this part of our ecosystem.

• I can relate to the part about how unthankful it can be to be a mediator... it's a pretty interesting dynamic where something really useful is being disincentivized, would be interested in hearing more of your, or others' thoughts about it.
• And I feel sorry that your work on moderation had negative effects on your interpersonal relationships. :| I don't know how that exactly looked like for you, but could also imagine an exploration into dynamics here might be pretty interested and potentially helpful to understand more widely.
• The part about people being confused about CEA's role and activities, and the autonomy of the invidual teams, made me think that it might make sense to make the teams more prominent in comparison to CEA overall?
  • Like, giving teams more prominent names and brands (and cool logos!), emphasizing the teams more as the relevant entity that did something as opposed to CEA?

Thanks for doing this work, this seems like a particularly useful benchmark to track the world model of AI systems.

I found it pretty interesting to read the prompts you use, which are quite extensive and give a lot of useful structure to the reasoning. I was surprised to see in table 16 that the zero-shot prompts had almost the same performance level. The prompting kinda introduces a bunch of variance I imagine, and I wonder whether I should expect scaffolding (like https://futuresearch.ai/ are presumable focussing on) to cause significant improvements. 

Thanks, that all makes sense and moderates my optimism a bit, and it feels like we roughly exhausted the depth of my thinking. Sigh... anyways, I'm really thankful and maybe also optimistic for the work that dedicated and strategically thinking people like you have been and will be doing for animals.

1. That's interesting, based on thinking that animal protein in the end comes from plant protein, and that animals use up a lot of space, food, and extra infrastructure that is not directly involved in turning plant protein into meat, I'd've guessed that plant protein would be much cheaper than animal protein.
   1. I quickly asked chatGPT for the cheapest animal vs. plant proteins in the US:
      Chicken: Approximately 6.6 cents per gram of protein
      Lentils: Approximately 3.7 cents per gram of protein
   2. Less difference than I'd've guessed.
2. Interesting, hard for me to judge. Reading the Innovations needed section, it seems like most hurdles are in the 3 OOM range, only the growth factor price is 6 OOM off.
   1. My naive reaction is: AI + increased wealth + generally improving science & engineering + increased caring + those are "just" engineering problems -> I'm much more bullish than the authors of the report, who are 9% for:

   2. >50M metric tons of cellular meat will be sold at any price within a continuous 12-month span before the end of 2051.

      9%

      1. (For context, the annual production of conventional meat (excluding seafood) in 2018 was 346M metric tons)
      2. I'm maybe at 40%, given that plant-based meat might just do it by itself, or that something disruptive happens that affects R&D broadly, or that it's just unintuitively difficult.
3. I'm more hopeful this will be more comparable to civil rights / racism / sexism, as there are concrete victims who are suffering (and there is already a broad agreement that animals in human guardianship shouldn't suffer), compared to climate change, which is much more abstract and indirect.
4. Yeah, I somewhat agree that the steady increase will probably bottom out at maybe 20%. But my hopeful vision is that at 20%, there will be critical mass effects for political action and for the demand of alternative products to lead to a much more mature industry.
   1. Plus I expect health and climate change angles on meat consumption will also more likely than not steadily increase.
       

Finally, I'm also probably more optimistic about your last point, thinking that price/taste competitive meat alternatives will be huge. I think the Beyond and Impossible "moments" were huge milestones, and a few more "moments" like that will reduce resistance against higher welfare standards & higher prices for conventional meat.

Really interesting, thanks for sharing. I was particularly surprised about your changes of mind here:

We can make meaningful progress on abolishing factory farming or improving farmed animal welfare by 2050	75%	10%	-65%
We can make meaningful progress on abolishing factory farming or improving farmed animal welfare by 2100	85%	15%	-70%

E.g. some spontaneous potential cruxes that might be interesting to hear your disagreement with, in case they capture your reasons for pessimism:

1. Plant protein sources will become price- and taste-competitive with more than half of all consumed meat products by 2040.
2. Cultured meat will become price- and taste-competitive with more than half of all consumed meat by 2050.
3. There is a critical mass of people caring about animal welfare at which animal rights will become major political issues in most democracies.
4. There will be a steady increase in people caring about animal welfare in the coming decade.
   1. E.g. I expect Germany to have a >20% vegetarian population by 2040 (currently apparently 12%).

Thanks for this! :) I unfortunately only had time for skimming but I found the summary of pathways super useful and I had a positive impression of the level of rigor that went into this. Also appreciate the section on downside risks and how to address them.

Thanks so much for sharing your writing, it resonated deeply with me and made me cry more than once.

I feel incapable of being heard correctly at this point, so I guess it was a mistake to speak up at all and I'm going to stop now.

Noooo, sorry you feel that way. T_T I think you sharing your thinking here is really helpful for the broader EA and good-doer field, and I think it's an unfortunate pattern that online communications quickly feels (or even is) somewhat exhausting and combative.

Just an idea, maybe you would have a much better time doing an interview with e.g. Spencer Greenberg on his Clearer Thinking podcast, or Robert Wiblin on the 80,000 Hours podcast? I feel like they are pretty good interviewers who can ask good questions that make for accurate and informative interviews.

(Just want to say, I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts and being so candid, Dustin. I find it very interesting and insightful to learn more about your perspective.)

Would it be possible to set up a fund that pays people for the damages they incurred for a lawsuit where they end up being innocent? That way the EA community could make it less risky for those who haven’t spoken up, and also signal how valuable their information is to them.