I have twice recently "gently counseled" people on EA forum norms when they come in, in my opinion, a little too hot for this rather cool medium 😃 is there something official/CEA-endorsed on this subject? If not, should I/someone write it? I could point them to Scout Mindset but that's kind of a high barrier to entry. 

The positive media storm for Anthropic is bigger than I thought it would be.  Almost every major news network has featured them and almost all of it puts a halo on Amodei (which feels a bit icky but hey). And every 4th post on my linkedin is along the lines of "Claude hits no. 1 on App store" "the idea that no big tech has morals is dead," "my 3 year love affair with GPT Is over" "I made the switch to Claude and I'll never look back" As much as refusing the govt. contact might delay their IPO and give their valuation a temporary hit, they could hardly have hoped for a better PR flood. Every new user that switches more only helps them but hurts their biggest competitor. It's also good timing for them because right now their product is probably better than Open AI's which wasn't the case a year ago and might not be the case 6 months from now. It's still unclear whether this will be a good business decision as well as a "moral" one but I suspect it will.

Thought to share some infographics on animal advocacy org expenses from the Stray Dog Institute's 2024 State of the Movement report, which I learned about via Moritz's excellent post.  Most org spending is in North America and Europe:  North American and European orgs accounted for most of the spend in sub-Saharan Africa and LATAM & the Caribbean, despite spending (say) only ~1% of their total expenses in SSA:  I don't have any good sense of how this Global North-dominated funding potentially skews priorities, but this drill down by animal category may be a start: As well as this drill down by intended outcome. Naively it seems that SSA's allocation looks like North America's for instance, except that the latter has a greater proportion of org spending going to increasing availability of animal-free products, which makes sense given relative wealth: For what it's worth, here's what the funding allocations look like for animal categories as a whole: mostly terrestrial animals, mostly farmed. I'd be keen to get takes from folks in the know on what seems underfunded here. Farmed insects jump out: just $135k out of $260m overall (~0.05%) seems nuts. I also wonder about the skewing of priorities due to outside funding. Moritz wrote which I agree with; another angle is Tom & Karthik's point that although it also isn't clear to me from the infographics above whether meaningful change in their sense would be reflected in the drill downs.