The ambiguity in this regard may give the impression that there is more hostility toward people using AI to draft things than there actually is.

There's some ambiguity as to whether this is a personal preference question (I.e., I would never post something drafted by an AI, but don't have a problem if you do) or a normative question (I. E., I would never post something drafted by an AI and neither should you. 

I would definitely want a human reviewing and possibly iterating, but if that is happening and the AI is drafting, that's fine. 

I think the problem is fundamentally the lack of care and attention to the content being created, not whether or not AI is used. If it is in people's incentives to produce polished, thoughtless, drivel on LinkedIn and they can do it in 10 seconds, they will. 

This is very different from an iterative process in which the human is carefully examining the output and refining to optimize the exploration and explanation of an idea. 

I have experience writing things with and without AI. At least for me, it can be a very difficult process trying to convey things as clearly and effectively as I can. Perhaps I am being unreasonable in putting that much time into the process and perhaps other people are just much better at writing clearly and effectively without AI. But I can say that I would not produce a lot of the content that I produce without AI being able to shorten the process significantly. 

I disagree pretty strongly with this. 

Although there are tradeoffs associated with AI writing, mostly being able to produce content that can appear polished and well-considered when it is not, I think AI's enabling the proliferation of good thoughts and ideas that would otherwise just never happen far outweighs this. 

Going back and forth with AI, reviewing, and drafting can turn a writing process that might take several days to a week or more, into an hour or two, or less. This enables me, and I'm sure others, to share content and ideas that otherwise we would not be able to.

Removing the barriers to people sharing their thoughts quickly and effectively is probably how we get more new and impactful ideas out there. I've been pretty sad at the sort of witch-huntery I've been seeing about AI generated content.

This is a worthwhile idea and I appreciate you putting it out there. Team formation and skills matching are real bottlenecks. That said, for ideas that fall outside established EA cause areas or existing frameworks, the bigger bottleneck is often upstream of team formation: getting even modest funding to explore feasibility in a rigorous way. Volunteer energy and cross-functional collaboration are valuable, but they tend to dissipate without some resource runway. Your model might be even stronger if it included a pathway for connecting promising early-stage ideas to funders willing to back basic exploration, not just to collaborators.

I don't know that it is entirely manipulative or insincere, even if the founders of Farmkind are themselves vegan and support veganism. I think that they are trying to put forward a perspective and highlight a perspective that is also consistent with funding effective animal charities:

"I love consuming animal products and I am not giving that up. But I also think it's fucked up and wrong how animals are treated in the factory farming system."

And then they would initially use the interesting contrast between that and the vegan community to generate attention, while then emphasizing the commonality. That animals shouldn't be tortured and we can all do something to help make that stop.

I think that Farmkind is right that embracing people who have that perspective and validating that perspective may be part of growing the big tent, through not just funding but through engagement with the political process as well.

It seems like there were some execution issues here, but I hope that the appetite for creative and new ways to try to engage with the omnivorous supermajority continues growing.

Yeah, there's the possibility of a double-standard. Essentially the PFG is reputationally penalized for competitive choices in ways their normal competitors are not.

It seems the short term solution to this is selecting contexts that aren't fraught with ethical issues.

And if you succeed in the short term, the long term solution would be a messaging campaign that tried to get at this irrational double-standard where competitive business choices are not popular.

Nick, I think you're imagining a different model than what I'm proposing. You're picturing a founder who needs to be driven by altruism instead of greed. That's not the idea.

The model is: a foundation buys an already-successful business from its existing owners and keeps the professional management in place. The managers keep getting paid salaries and bonuses. They keep running the business exactly as before. The only thing that changes is where the profits go after they're generated. This isn't about finding saintly founders. It's about acquisition. Private equity does this constantly. They buy businesses, keep management, extract profits. We're proposing the same thing, just with a charitable foundation as the equity holder instead of a PE fund.

You're right that greed drives startup founders. But startups are a tiny fraction of the economy. Most market share consists of mature companies run by professional managers who are already separated from ownership. They don't know or care whether their shares are held by Vanguard, Blackstone, or a foundation. They come to work, hit their targets, collect their bonus. That's the context where this operates.

This is precisely why this model is scalable. It doesn't require heroes. It just requires a foundation to buy out an existing business and keep the operations the same. In most businesses, management does not have much equity so the PFG business can offer the same compensation packages that a normal business would.