I feel extremely unsure about this one. I'm voting slightly against purely from the perspective of, "wow, there are projects in that direction that feel super neglected".

Given that this comment has gained some traction, consider making a top level post with more instructions to get people to do this?

I'd also be interested in a bit more exposition on the theory of change re: writing the AG — I get why writing to your representative is probably useful, but do AGs typically take letters from the public into account when deciding whether to make an objection?! (I'd bid for you to make the top level post even if you don't address this question though, just for visibility reasons.)

Nice, sounds like a fun event! Thanks for pointing to the initial list of concrete projects, I found them interesting, especially:

• Pedantry metrics — I found that an interesting way to think about degrees of falsehoods / how misleading statements can be. Maybe there's some sort of evals flavored project there?
• Argument parser — I like the idea of creating some sort of LLM tool to "neutralize persuasion / rhetoric".

I'd be kind of interested to see someone try those ideas out if you re-run this hackathon. And wow, I found the demo on detecting fraudulent research super cool. Agreed that it'd be exciting to see this go viral.

Nice! By the way, I really appreciate how consistently your team helps ground discussions like this in data. I opened this post and as I was scrolling through, I thought, "oh I bet David has already responded with something helpful." It's a great public service!

I found this such a beautiful piece of writing! :’)

@Anna Weldon I’ve said this before, but I am just SO excited for the managerial expertise and excellence you are bringing to CEA. We (CEA and EA) are so lucky <3

Thanks for such a thorough compendium of advice, this seems like a great resource!! 💜

This is so great, congratulations team!! <3

One thing this makes me curious about: how good is the existing evidence base on electric stunning is better for the welfare of the shrimp, and how much better is stunning? I didn't realize SWP was thinking of using the corporate campaign playbook to scale up stunning, so it makes me curious how robustly good this intervention is, and I couldn't quickly figure this out from the Forum / website. @Aaron Boddy🔸 is there a public thing I can read by any chance? No pressure!

FWIW, "how good is stunning for welfare" is the main question I have about the impact of HSI right now (whereas other crucial considerations like "how many shrimp do you target", "will farmers use the stunners", "how should we value shrimp / their expected sentience" all feel clearer to me).

I often find myself thinking about this post, and I now often use the phrases "morality as taxes" and "wholeheartedness". Thank you for writing it :)

Nice. I'd find this super interesting!

(A nitpick responding to just one point and not the whole post)

I feel a bit wary of using SWP as your default example here because this comment from @Aaron Boddy🔸 makes me think that SWP doesn't have a ton of room for rapidly deploying more funding right now -- I'd expect further donations to have lower marginal ROI than directly buying more stunners which I /expect/ is what you're assuming in the counterfactual (which is not a dig at SWP, seems fine for them to use extra donations for lower marginal ROI things if their top priority tickets are comfortably funded!)

A broader point: I'd expect the marginal ROI of additional funding in the invertebrate welfare space to diminish much faster than the marginal ROI of AMF donations.