I think it would be an interesting exercise to send a handful of articles to these services and see the quality of the feedback. I would also doubt it would be very good quality but would reserve judgement before trying!

"In addition, based on the "More options" drop-down in question 2 of the Donor Comass, you are modelling effects after 500 years, which I think are very uncertain."

That's not a bad point. I would be kind of on the opposite end of the scale though. We are so clueless about both 500 years in the future and soil arthropods I wouldn't be modeling either of those....

Thanks that's a fantastic reply, really appreciate all the humility thought, time and effort put in. Looking forward to seeing future work :)

Thanks @Vasco Grilo🔸 . Yes I was thinking about all those comments I just forgot exactly which invertebrates they referred to. I suspect they will have a similar answer about any soil invertebrates but we will see!

I think they've covered this a number of times and explained why they haven't considered soil invertebrates responding to previous comments you've made @Vasco Grilo🔸 

Thanks there's some insightful stuff here. I really appreciated this. "If someone doesn’t have the time to investigate an area, it can be at times reasonable to check for this kind of bias and discount appropriately (I think this is most useful as a guide when a group or individual has shown repeated bias in the past) but I also think this can at times serve as a shortcut to dismissing anything that doesn’t already ideologically align with yourself. Balancing these two competing forces can be a constant struggle, particularly in areas outside of your expertise and I know it’s something constantly in my mind when I read about politics."

Despite my best efforts, I've really struggled to understand arguments around the nature of consciousness and valenced states. I'm still not entirely sure that any consciousness model is very meaningful but that's another discussion... This means my analysis has often stepped up the level to process. As a side note I still think far more EA funds should go to animal welfare than currently does, although the defensive nature of responses from RP and other animal welfare folk has updated me a bit against this over the last couple of years.

I think the GiveWell analogy is a great one, and it would be fair to look at the backgrounds of staff that were doing prioritisatoin. If most came from malaria backgrounds I would be quite concerned, I haven't looked into that. In a cross-cause prioritisation process I think there is more room for bias than in a CEA. 

I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on research team make-up being open to outside scrutiny. Like you say I don't think it's the most important thing but still important,. You've said that "personel is policy" carries weight, but haven't suggested how we should approach examining that? My Claude ranking method isn't the best for sure, what other way you would suggest? From an RP organisational perspective, I think there is a risk that the org's work could be undermined somewhat by people who might feel like a bunch of animal welfare/GCR folks might have disproportionate sway over a cross-cause prioritisation process like this.  

I agree it would be great to have other groups working on this stuff, a poll a while ago was overwhelmingly in favour. The reality is though, you guys are it for now. There aren't other groups working on moral weights and cross-cause prioritisation. I think this means that there's perhaps more responsibility for balance within the organisation. The situation is more "Aristotle" dominating philosophy than Friedman and Stiglitz. I think with our current levels of information, thre is far more shared ground in economics than in cross-cause prioritisatoin. Perhaps within RP there's much agreement but I would argue there will be a heavy "groupthink" element built there over time. That there are 10+ moral theories in this model illustrates the extreme diversity. Between animal welfare and human welfare we have a bridge of one moral weights project? While GCR uncertainties are far bigger still, with moral and practical junctures going almost uncountable. On the GCR front even something as important and straightforward as as "have those who worked on AI risk done ill or good so far" is hotly debated. 

As a final (if a bit sour) note, RP as I've experienced it on the forum has seemed pretty impervious to criticism and suggestion. Responses are always intelligent and very well reasoned, but l haven't seen openness to mind-changing, and not just in response to my comments. When criticism comes in, the response is polite well reasoned refutation - very good arguments for maintaining status-quo. I don't think I've seen a response along the lines of "hey you have a good point there, let's look into that" or even "yes that decision was tricky and we did X because...". As an example I put a big effort into understanding the moral weights project (for personal interest reasons). Then after writing a decent post about the MWP process, the response from RP members was excellent and well thought through, but never acknowledged that any of my process points might be reasonable. In contrast orgs like GiveWell in my experience are far more open to mind changing.

This is super cool. I especially love the invitation to creativity and blue sky thinking invited here. Shrimp Welfare project and FarmKind are great examples of genuine innovation IMO so it's great to see those founders leading the charge here. Part of me wishes I...

1) Was suuuuper passionate about animal welfare
2) Wasn't 8 years into running a global health charity

;)

Wow that's crazy I listened to Elon musk  being interviewed by Dwarkesh and I came out of that thinking data centers in space at scale seemed a bit absurd. This has updated me a little that maybe it's more plausible than I thought.