There is space for those of us who for example prefer the GHD cause area. A quick visit to this forum would also have showed this. What are we doing wrong in the framing of EA which makes certain people become so critical of the movement, and what make the "negatives" stand out so much more? 

Some thoughts:

• Youtubers are rarely impartial and thorough, so it shouldn't be surprising that a person with finite time to investigate a movement they likely already felt negatively about would do a so-so job and not go beyond the reddit-level understanding of EA and EAs.
  • Adding on to your observation, the youtuber's conclusion doesn't capture how the vast majority of EAs who are into specific causes and varying levels of certainty about their beliefs. It doesn't capture the friendship and antagonism between rats and EA, between EA and silicon valley people, between EAs and the left, and EAs and the right ...
  • Youtubers also need to youtube -- the algorithm also rewards inflammatory language, so "xyz is literally the worst thing in the world" will always do better than "I have mixed feelings about xyz."
• I don't know if it is productive to engage with every video of this nature, but it definitely made me think about EA's public "persona." Barring the narrow cluster of possible futures where the world goes exactly how a few dozen east bay rationalists think it will, I feel cause-neutral community building and comms still has value.

Maybe the movement has reached a cap in terms of its size?

Definitely not! Reminder that a minority have heard about EA and have some basic understanding of the movement (and the basic EA pitch is well-received): https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/CwKiAt54aJjcqoQDh/are-1-in-5-americans-familiar-with-ea

There are 8+ billion humans, and only 10-15K EAs. We are simply not reaching out to the millions of proto-EAs out there! We also don't have the capacity or institutional intent to accommodate that many people.

2026, the year vegan baking was solved!

On a more serious note:

1. "At $24 for the equivalent of 45 egg whites ($0.53 each) it's more expensive than buying conventional ($0.21 each) or organic ($0.33) egg whites, but not massively so." 
   
   I would be interested in an econ person's take on how they predict the price to change over time. Intuitively, I feel that $0.53 is a promising number for a newly launched product, and if demand increases, the price would plummet and make it the de-facto choice for many products that contain egg whites?
    
2. I hope they do a good job of marketing it, an increasing number of people are negatively primed towards cultivated products.

Ok but I unironically think that a 2D debate slider could be useful! 

So, who is this?

(Not a solution, but a general observation about people who engage in bashing EA.)

The "dot connectors" will always connect the dots, infer or invent nefarious motivations, and try to bucket you as they like. The problem is that you can't neatly map EAs onto the political spectrum -- yes, there are dominant trends, but the variance in views is sufficiently high that commentators have genuinely no clue where EAs belong. This makes sense because most major movements in history have been political ones, so when assessing EA, most people pull out their internal political philosophy detector and you end up with a mess like the chart below! 

But EA is a moral philosophy movement, and the chain of thinking is genuinely different. Instead of thinking how to organize society and labor, EAs unanimously agree on beneficentrism and deal with questions like, "What morally matters? To what degree? Which interventions are most effective? How do you even assess what is most effective?" When you organize a movement around these set of questions, you end up with:

• Some people who want to automate software engineering, some who want to pause it entirely, and others who think we should defensively accelerate progress
• At least two frontier AI labs: let's not forget OpenAI received $30 million in philanthropic money during its inception!
• Some EAs who think that AI will be a big deal for {their cause area}, others who are skeptical of the whole AI bundle
• Some EAs passionately dislike AI writing, some are fine with methodical use of AI in writing, and some are even more liberal about it
• One particular EA who is the loudest voice combatting the data center water usage myth
• (At least) one person from the EA-sphere who has large holdings in AI infrastructure
• And conservative AI Safetyists like you and liberal long timeline accelerationists like me

I don't know what the best solution for combatting EA bashing is, but spreading the idea that EA is more politically and intellectually diverse than people think should help. 

... other brain regions (accessory lobes) have shown to compensate these integrative processes in this taxon, which has not yet been demonstrated for Penaeidae. It's thus still a low rating for lack of data, not for proof of failing this criterion.

This reminds me of two things:

• I am forgetting the precise terms here, but for a while in the 1800s through most of the 1900s, researchers thought that birds weren't intelligent because they were essentially comparing human and avian brains 1:1, but later, others found that while birds lacked that specific component (neocortex?), some other regions of their brain were functionally similar and that birds were indeed smart rather than instinct-driven biological machines.
• I recall watching Dustin Crummett's presentation on insect sentience a while back, and when talking about lack of evidence of sentience in certain insects, he emphasized that the besides black soldier fly and honeybees, most insects aren't that well-studied.

I am a little surprised that evidence for integrative brain regions is very high for all but the Penaeidae. Do we know to what extent this is the case because direct/proxy studies on Penaeidae sentience haven't been performed vs. studies were performed but results showed low evidence of sentience?

And answering some of your questions:

• Which criterions do you think are the most convincing to update your confidence?
  • Criteria 2 ≈ 3 > 4 ≈ 5
• Do you have other types of evidence that better influence your confidence?
  • Not evidence, but a heuristic I use when thinking about sentience is that any organism that performs reinforcement learning, i.e., making on-the-fly decisions informed by environmental stimuli is most likely sentient.

I lean towards a yes but I am uncertain because I don't know how the stimuli is fed and I would imagine that the simulated brain, unlike an embodied fruit fly, isn't perpetually processing information and taking actions. If the latter is true and if it replaces the need for ... processing ... billions of life fruit flies in labs worldwide, seems like a huge animal welfare win to me.

EDIT: Eon, the company behind this development published a blog post explaining their research, and after reading it, I am much less confident in my lean. This doesn't seem to be a whole fly brain emulation / a full copy:

First, the Shiu et al. model is a simplified neuron model. It uses leaky integrate-and-fire dynamics rather than morphologically detailed multicompartment neurons, and it relies on inferred neurotransmitter identity and simplified synapse models. This means that dendritic nonlinearities, biophysical channel diversity, and many specific dynamics are not represented. This is enough to recover some sensorimotor transformations, but clearly does not capture the full range of neural activity. Further, internal state, plasticity, learning, hormonal changes are largely missing. Biological flies do not respond to the same sensory input the same way in all contexts. Hunger, satiety, arousal, mating state, egg-laying state, recent sensory history, neuromodulators, and learning all reshape sensorimotor transformations.

Source: How the Eon Team Produced a Virtual Embodied Fly

Is this primarily meant for people who are already veg*n/sympathetic or a wider audience?

If the latter, it is worth rethinking if the word "vegan" should be used at all, as there are a bunch of studies that show that the public is negatively biased towards the term and alternate terms are received more positively (see this, for instance).

I just emailed him, close to zero chance he will see it but if he does 🤞