Well done to the Shrimp Welfare Project for contributing to Waitrose's pledge to stun 100% of their warm water shrimps by the end of 2026, and for getting media coverage in a prominent newspaper (this article is currently on the front page of the website): Waitrose to stop selling suffocated farmed prawns, as campaigners say they feel pain

A reflection on the posts I have written in the last few months, elaborating on my views In a series of recent posts, I have sought to challenge the conventional view among longtermists that prioritizes the empowerment or preservation of the human species as the chief goal of AI policy. It is my opinion that this view is likely rooted in a bias that automatically favors human beings over artificial entities—thereby sidelining the idea that future AIs might create equal or greater moral value than humans—and treating this alternative perspective with unwarranted skepticism. I recognize that my position is controversial and likely to remain unpopular among effective altruists for a long time. Nevertheless, I believe it is worth articulating my view at length, as I see it as a straightforward application of standard, common-sense utilitarian principles that merely lead to an unpopular conclusion. I intend to continue elaborating on my arguments in the coming months. My view follows from a few basic premises. First, that future AI systems are quite likely to be moral patients; second, that we shouldn’t discriminate against them based on arbitrary distinctions, such as their being instantiated on silicon rather than carbon, or having been created through deep learning rather than natural selection. If we insist on treating AIs fundamentally differently from a human child or adult—for example, by regarding them merely as property to be controlled or denying them the freedom to pursue their own goals—then we should identify a specific ethical reason for our approach that goes beyond highlighting their non-human nature. Many people have argued that consciousness is the key quality separating humans from AIs, thus rendering any AI-based civilization morally insignificant compared to ours. They maintain that consciousness has relatively narrow boundaries, perhaps largely confined to biological organisms, and would only arise in artificial systems under highly specific con

How might EA-aligned orgs in global health and wellness need to adapt calculations of cost-effective interventions given the slash-and-burn campaign currently underway against US foreign aid? Has anyone tried gaming out what different scenarios of funding loss look like (e.g., one where most of the destruction is reversed by the courts, or where that reversal is partial, or where nothing happens and the days are numbered for things like PEPFAR)? Since US foreign aid is so varied, I imagine that's a tall order, but I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately!

Screwworm is a flesh-eating maggot! I skimmed past many posts like this, assuming that it was some kind of stomach worm, or related to the suffering of wild worms (not that I am opposed to either of those, they just don't grab my attention as strongly)

I wrote a quick take on lesswrong about evals. Funders seem enchanted with them, and I'm curious about why that is.  https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kq8CZzcPKQtCzbGxg/quinn-s-shortform?commentId=HzDD3Lvh6C9zdqpMh