What donation-accepting entity (e.g., charity) would it be morally best to transfer $20 under the coherent extrapolation of my (Aaron Bergman's) values, all things considered?
20
793
1.4k
2030
19%
Rethink Priorities
12%
Shrimp Welfare Initiative
8%
Fish Welfare Initiative
7%
Center for the Governance of AI
7%
Center on Long-Term Risk
6%
The Humane League
6%
Long-term Future Fund
5%
Centre for Effective Altruism
4%
Sentience Institute
4%
Center for Reducing Suffering
3%
Qualia Research Institute
3%
Holly Elmore / Pause AI
2%
Patient Philanthropy Fund
2%
Do not donate (ie Aaron keeps the $20 - maybe but not explicitly to donate later)
2%
Machine Intelligence Research Institute
2%
ALLFED
1.7%
Longview Emerging Challenges Fund
1.6%
Lightcone Infrastructure
1.1%
Centre for Long-Term Resilience
1.1%
NYU Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program

PLEASE BE ADVISED: "Tbh I was never really thinking of this market as having legit resolution criteria. Probably should have made that clear. Like I like the selection effects that come from people willing to trade away fake internet points for a chance of moving money to some organization...Henceforth ppl are considered warned"

Update: as of Oct 27 2023 these probabilities are very roughly what I endorse

[Note Oct 27 2023: these were my original takes but shouldn't be considered up to date] Relevant information prior to any voting on the poll: I currently think Rethink Priorities holds a plurality but not a majority of the probability distribution, followed by Shrimp Welfare [Edit: Project], followed by Fish Welfare Initiative. With very high uncertainty I'd estimate that the union of these three has a probability of 50%.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:
bought Ṁ5 of N/A

"Aaron keeps the money" is pretty underrated IMO.

https://x.com/trevposts/status/1740817056818254019?s=20

No entry for Lightcone? 😢 We are pretty funding constrained these days!

@OliverHabryka I think a lot of orgs are going to start being funding constrained. This is largely due, IMO, to orgs not adjusting to the new funding situation.

@OliverHabryka Only a couple of these I personally added (incl CEA like an hour ago) - if you think there’s at least like a .3% chance Lightcone is the true answer, add it as an answer and put at least one manna (manum?) on it!

How should we handle if a new charity spins off from one of these? New answer? Or keep things under the parent?

@CalebWithers Uh...idk? Tbh I was never really thinking of this market as having legit resolution criteria. Probably should have made that clear. Like I like the selection effects that come from people willing to trade away fake internet points for a chance of moving money to some organization.

In all seriousness, people who didn't realize this can hmu and I can compensate you with manna (henceforth ppl are considered warned - I'll add this to the market description)

@AaronBergman18 how about resolving it to the percentages of your charitable giving you decide to give each organisation a year from now after having considered all arguments?

@Austin I'll add some more notes (here and in my market)

1. I've talked with Andres a lot. I'm very impressed with him. He's super knowledgeable, data-driven, focused, competent and pragmatic. He gets shit done.
2. SWP project is, IMO, the best charity to come out of charity entrepreneurship, at least for animal welfare (and perhaps overall according to many moral frameworks) in 7 years (about 40 charities I think)
3. ACE (animal charity evaluators) executive director mentioned to me that this was one of the top things they thought was worth pursuing.
4. People are starting to take shrimp more seriously. Growing now can be pivotal
5. SWP is getting much more ambitious at solving this problem. We should reward that.
6. There are a lot of shrimp. About 5x more shrimp are farmed than all land animals.
7. Extreme cost effectiveness.

I added LTFF because I think it's reasonably common for people to trend towards valuing total and longtermist welfare, as they reflect over the years

@CalebWithers Thanks, and at least in terms of explicit endorsement, I do. Pre-FTX, I was working under the assumption that LTFF was as un-funding constrained as any organization anywhere, but now I guess I have very little idea what the marginal funded project looks like

bought Ṁ20 of N/A

I'm going hard on SWP. My understanding of Aaron is that he's pretty Tomasikpilled (https://www.aaronbergman.net/p/my-case-for-suffering-leaning-ethics, https://www.aaronbergman.net/p/on-suffering), so his value system is going to favor interventions that address immediate extreme suffering or S-risks over interventions that promote flourishing or address X-risks. Based on that, I think LTFF, MIRI, and GiveWell are all less likely to win.

Among the remaining options, I think it is relatively likely that Aaron will conclude SWP beats FWI (shrimp are small and SWP has already secured corporate commitments impacting >125 million shrimp/year https://www.shrimpwelfareproject.org/post/mou-with-mer-seafood, indicating lots of shrimp/$. FWI reaches about 1.3 fish/$ https://www.fishwelfareinitiative.org/impact, and I think Aaron is likely to defer to the RP moral weights which place shrimp and fish on similar footing https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Qk3hd6PrFManj8K6o/#Key_Takeaways). I am less sure about SWP beating THL, RP, CLR, and the Center for Reducing suffering.

@SpacedOutMatt unironic 🫡 to the comment

I think CLR and CRS win in a nearby Everettian branch, but I don't think they have much of a theory of change (even a very indirect one) atm. This is based on digging in to their research when applying to a CLR program like 1.5 years ago (so not just a trivial first impression) but I stand to be corrected nonetheless

bought Ṁ10 of N/A

@SpacedOutMatt I have updated toward thinking that with current information, it is very hard to conclude whether THL or SWP is better under my model of your moral system.

@SpacedOutMatt FWIW my current best guess is that if you use all the RP analyses and assumptions that THL beats out SWP, though obviously not with high confidence.

@PeterWildeford that seems entirely possible. When I've played with the numbers, it ends up substantially hinging on how much one thinks SWP's interventions move shrimp's welfare within their capability range. It's just so hard to make a reasonable estimate that I struggle to reach a meaningful conclusion.

@Conflux Should be shrimp welfare project

BTW they call themselves "Shrimp Welfare Project", not "Shrimp Welfare Initiative". But I think a lot of people make this mistake.

@PeterWildeford Since the creator said it wrong in the description, I’m hoping they’ll resolve to this answer if they go for the Shrimp Welfare Project?

@Conflux I think so


Take note @AaronBergman

@Conflux @PeterWildeford @SpacedOutMatt I hereby declare that for the purposes of this market, "Shrimp Welfare Initiative" will be considered synonymous to "Shrimp Welfare Project" until further notice

bought Ṁ10 of N/A

I put M10 on Rethink Priorities but otherwise I'll stay out of this since I'm clearly biased. :)

bought Ṁ15 of N/A

@PeterWildeford Ok I put more money on RP for fun

@Conflux this is a really funny freudian slip