quickly, because I want to get back to reading - the first link to Anna's post is broken. Should probably be https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xtuk9wkuSP6H7CcE2/ayn-rand-s-model-of-living-money-and-an-upside-of-burnout

Becoming a member means you join our bi-annual rounds and intend to donate ~$100,000 or more (soft commitment, we consider applications from funders who grant over $50,000 a year) to meta charities, either to charities you found through the Meta Charity Funding Circle or outside of it.

See also https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/CMfrQBrSwpujaqF8Z/how-much-do-you-believe-your-results

This is beautiful, thank you! This has definitely planted some seeds in my mind. Perhaps the most interesting points to me have been the prevalence of cockfighting and the dominance of ethics centered around virtues

I love this! It is rare to see new intervention ideas and I really appreciate such write ups even if you end up with "this cause area doesn't need much attention" - it shines a light on an interesting problem and can spark possibly useful follow on work.

Downvoted in large part because of what looks like the unfiltered use of LLMs. I really appreciate satiric content, and honestly think that is a good way to criticize or talk about unconventional ideas. The basic idea in this post is simple and punchy and would have been much better presented in a much more concise essay

Re the first point, I agree that the context should be related to a person with an EA philosophy.

Re the second point, I think that discussions about the EA portfolio are often interpreted as 0-sum or tribal, and may cause more division in the movement. 

I agree that most of the effects of such a debate are likely about shifting around our portfolio of efforts. However, there are other possible effects (recruiting/onboarding/promoting/aiding existing efforts, or increasing the amount of total resources by getting more readers involved). Also, a shift in the portfolio can happen as a result of object-level discussion, and it is not clear to me which way is better.

I guess my main point is that I'd like people in the community to think less about the community should think. Err.. oops..

I think that this question will be better if it is framed not in terms of the EA community. This is because 

1. The reasoning about the object level question involving timelines and different intervention strategies is very interesting in itself, and there's no need to add the layer of understanding what the community is doing and how practically it could and should adjust.
2. Signal boosting a norm of focusing less on intra-movement prioritization and more on personal or marginal additional prioritization and object-level questions. 

For example, I like Dylan's reformulation attempt due to it being about object-level differences. Another could be to ask about the next $100K invested in AI safety.

Some thoughts:

1. Abolishment vs welfarism. The goals of the movement may diverge in both the long term vision (complete abolishment vs happy farms) and in respect to the medium term (less animals grown for food vs animals grown for food have better living standards).
2. Difference between species and tradeoffs between them (e.g. increased cost of pig meat can increase consumption of chicken meat).
3. As others have noted, there are important secondary effects on the movement itself for most interventions. I think it is a very important meta- question about how prioritization should account for it.

This is a really cool idea, and the level of execution on the testing and reasoning is spot on👌In particular I think it was a great choice to start experimenting with "plaintext" shared state.

This kind of research can also give some clarity on multi-agent AGI risk scenarios (e.g Distributional AGI: https://www.alphaxiv.org/abs/2512.16856 ), in the sense of coordination between supposedly stateless agents.