Thanks for all your efforts. I think donating to ALLFED saves human lives roughly as cost-effectively as GiveWell's top charities^[1], so I would say it is a good opportunity for people supporting global health and development interventions^[2].

1. ^{^}

   I estimated policy advocacy to increase resilience to global catastrophic food shocks is 4.08 times as cost-effective as GiveWell's top charities.

2. ^{^}

   Although I believe the best animal welfare interventions are way more cost-effective, and I do not know whether saving human lives is beneficial or harmful accounting for effects on animals.

Thanks, Laura!

Thanks, William. I asked because such analysis would inform whether farmed insects have positive or negative lives^[1], which is relevant to know whether curbing the growth of the industry is beneficial or harmful.

1. ^{^}

   I estimate chicken welfare reforms almost make their lives positive.

Hi Hannah and William,

Have you considered doing a similar analysis for farmed insects?

Thanks for the update! Which fraction of the marginal donations to AWF go to invertebrate or wild animal welfare?

Thanks, Carolina! Just one note, you do not have to tag me, as I receive email notifications even if you do not.

If I understand correctly, of your spending of 248 k$ on Nourishing Tomorrow in 2023, 80 k$ was unrestricted, and 168 k$ (= (248 - 80)*10^3) was restricted to that program. I think you are saying the program as a whole caused 100 k$ of additional unrestricted donations that year. If so, the program caused 0.403 $ (= 100*10^3/(248*10^3)) of additional unrestricted donations per $ spent (in reality, it is lower due to overhead^[1]). That is less than 1 $, and I think the multiplier for the unrestricted funds is even lower due to diminishing returns^[2], so it looks like you should not be spending unrestricted funds on the program. Am I missing something?

1. ^{^}

   I suppose some of the spending on people, operations, finance and management is related to the program.

2. ^{^}

   I guess decreasing the spending on the program by 1 % would decrease the additional donations by less than 1 %.

Regarding prioritization: You can find details on how we allocate funding across programmatic areas in our financial statements.

I have checked your financial statements for 2023. It would be great if you added how much restricted and unrestricted funds you spend on each program.

I don't follow this comment. You're saying Vasco gives you X now, 2X to be paid back after k years. You plan to spend X/2 now, and lock up X/2, but somehow borrow 3/(2X) money now, such that you can pay the full amount back in k years?

Nitpick. (3/2) X, not 3/(2 X).

If one expects investments to grow more (in real terms) than the product "cost-effectiveness of altruistic spending conditional on survival"*"probability of survival" will decrease, it makes sense to invest as much as possible now, and then donate as much as possible later. Funders of altruistic interventions should try to equalise the product I just mentioned across years (otherwise, they should move their spending from the worst to the best years).

Nice points, Sasha!

On the 1st point, I think one should borrow money from banks until the conditions for borrowing additional money become as good as those of the available bets, and then get money both ways afterwards. Refusing a bet which is beneficial relative to nothing because there are loans with better conditions suggests one should be asking for more loans.

On the 2nd point, I wondered about the possibility of Greg not fulfilling the bet in order to decrease AI risk further, but I believe the world will look roughly the same way as now in terms of risk. So I expect Greg will not be much more worried than now, and therefore will fulfill the bet.

Hi @Laura Duffy,

In the quantitative model, you calculated the ratio between values for humans and animals. Should you have calculated the ratio between values for animals and humans, considering you are estimating the welfare range of animals relative to that of humans?