I am a generalist quantitative researcher. I am open to volunteering and paid work. I welcome suggestions for posts. You can give me feedback here (anonymously or not).
The groups are defined to some extent in the footnote I mentioned. I would say it is useful to have some information about the factors affecting the income of people with more or fewer years of formal education.
Can you do this same analysis for Top10% wealthy individuals versus remaining 90%, globally, and share the analysis of how income inequality trends through AI infra renting? Geographical boundaries are irrelevant today especially for how capital flows.
“Skilled” and “unskilled” are somewhat unfortunate terms that are nonetheless commonly used by economists. There is nothing that is “unskilled” about sewing a t-shirt, or scratching a living out of the earth as a subsistence farmer. (I’ve written about the working conditions by supposedly “unskilled” workers in Ethiopia.) Perhaps a more accurate delineation would be “jobs requiring a formal education” and “jobs that do not require a formal education”.
"Skilled workers earn more than unskilled workers, with the “skill premium” determined by the global supply of unskilled labor vs skilled labor." This assumption is clearly false.
I think the authors just mean people with more years of formal education tend to earn more. Do you disagree?
Hi Chris. Thanks for the clarifications. I agree including more effects on wild animals would be difficult. Note my question was whether you have "considered excluding effects on wild animals (such as wild fishes used for feed)". You might have read "including" instead of "excluding". Would it be better to exclude effects on all wild animals? It could be that the wild fishes used for feed would have suffered more if they were not caught.
Hello ion. Welcome to the EA Forum. On 1, I am open tobetsagainst short timelines for transformative AI (TAI), or what they supposedly imply, up to 10 k$. On 2, the environmental and survival pressures are to a significant extent established by humans, who are the ones setting up the training of AIs?
Hi Jim. There is no particular reason. I have just been sharing content I find interesting. My views about AI risk have not changed much recently. I guess the risk of human extinction over the next 10 years is something like 10^-7.
Corrected days-of-suffering formula. The old formula multiplied indirect impacts (like feed fish and pre-slaughter mortality) by the primary animal’s lifespan. A wild-caught anchovy used as feed suffers for one day regardless of what eats them. The corrected formula treats indirect impacts separately.
Have Faunalytics and Bryant Research (@Chris Bryant 🔸 or @Richie?) considered excluding effects on wild animals (such as wild fishes used for feed)? I am very uncertain about whether expanding agricultural land increases or decreases the welfare/suffering/happiness of soil invertebrates, and Ibelieve effects on these may be much larger than the effects on farmed animals and wild animals used for feed.
I also do not know whether decreasing the catch of wild fishes for feed increases or decreases animal welfare. Michael St. Jules concluded "decreasing the catch of wild aquatic animals for feed is likely to decrease aquaculture and increase insect farming, but has unclear effects on brine shrimp nauplii and other live feed".
The groups are defined to some extent in the footnote I mentioned. I would say it is useful to have some information about the factors affecting the income of people with more or fewer years of formal education.
Do you think a precise definition is needed to understand the post?
Hi Saarth.
I am not the author.
Did you see this footnote?
I think the authors just mean people with more years of formal education tend to earn more. Do you disagree?
Hi Chris. Thanks for the clarifications. I agree including more effects on wild animals would be difficult. Note my question was whether you have "considered excluding effects on wild animals (such as wild fishes used for feed)". You might have read "including" instead of "excluding". Would it be better to exclude effects on all wild animals? It could be that the wild fishes used for feed would have suffered more if they were not caught.
Hi Seth. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree.
Hi Peter. I am open to bets against short timelines for transformative AI (TAI), or what they supposedly imply, up to 10 k$.
I would be happy to review your estimates of the SROI of the grants for free if you think it may be useful.
Hello ion. Welcome to the EA Forum. On 1, I am open to bets against short timelines for transformative AI (TAI), or what they supposedly imply, up to 10 k$. On 2, the environmental and survival pressures are to a significant extent established by humans, who are the ones setting up the training of AIs?
Hi Jim. There is no particular reason. I have just been sharing content I find interesting. My views about AI risk have not changed much recently. I guess the risk of human extinction over the next 10 years is something like 10^-7.
Hi Jienna. Thanks for the update.
Have Faunalytics and Bryant Research (@Chris Bryant 🔸 or @Richie?) considered excluding effects on wild animals (such as wild fishes used for feed)? I am very uncertain about whether expanding agricultural land increases or decreases the welfare/suffering/happiness of soil invertebrates, and I believe effects on these may be much larger than the effects on farmed animals and wild animals used for feed.
I also do not know whether decreasing the catch of wild fishes for feed increases or decreases animal welfare. Michael St. Jules concluded "decreasing the catch of wild aquatic animals for feed is likely to decrease aquaculture and increase insect farming, but has unclear effects on brine shrimp nauplii and other live feed".