"Focus on the seeds, not the trees. What seeds are you planting today?"

“You should be far more concerned with your current trajectory than with your current results.”

"If you’re working hard on the right thing, you don’t need to worry about results. The outcome will come. It’s just a matter of time."

- James Clear

Your post captured it. If we're focused on the right thing, all we need is time.

An important topic!
Regarding the Symmetric AI Access and Application, to take advantage of it, I think we should adopt an AI culture, as mentioned by @Richie.

Having a special expert for AI in every organization is not enough. We have to be all AI-positive as team members in our own workplace. We cannot leave it to one person. We cannot throw money at the problem.

And adopting an AI culture as a collective is much harder. As I see it, in academia, where I came from, we cannot tell students, "Here is the most powerful tool we ever had - don't use it."

As for research, one practical recommendation I have is to use tools like Research Kick to find research gaps. You may not know that numerous researchers, including one from NASA, have discovered that AI can conceive of research ideas that took them years to develop on their own in just minutes. We have to not let our egos prevent us from being effective.

But it happens outside of academia, too (not where I am positioned, luckily). Using AI is seen as cheating. However, it is not cheating if you use it to deliver better results and utilize your own intelligence to accomplish tasks that AI cannot yet do during the rest of your time.

We should be lifelong learners, especially when it comes to new AI tools. I personally learn about new AI platforms every day from YouTube on the go. The AI gap is only widening between the profit and nonprofit sectors, as Kyle Behrend says. Speaking of symmetries and asymmetries, we aim to prevent an asymmetric disadvantage as nonprofits adopt AI.

Great, I wish I had it a long time ago! I created an account and a NotebookLM episode about it.

I know we're all rational people here, but I would suggest adding an option for users to customize their profile picture, background image, and QR code.

We want people to include this on their websites, and many would prefer it to be visually appealing.

As someone in the behavioral science field, I believe these features have a disproportionately influential impact.

Additionally, perhaps adding a web carousel on the main website that showcases specific use cases for requesting donations, rather than limiting this information to the newsletter.

Otherwise, a very user-friendly, simplicity-driven, convenience-first website!

Thanks for brainstorming our comparative advantage!
I think it all depends on whether we're wise enough to leverage it:

Motivational asymmetry - we need to care enough and encourage others to prioritize it over other priorities. The animal industry has the money, so we need to be equally attractive.

Truth asymmetry - we need to make people care about the truth.

Efficiency asymmetry - agreed.

Agility asymmetry - agreed.

Ceiling asymmetry - you can equally say that the animal-based agriculture already has the resources and experience using them, which is an advantage to the other side.

Cooperation asymmetry - if we're smart enough to overcome infighting.

So, I think that all of these can be our comparative advantage - but only if we seize the opportunity.

Defaults make a difference. I submitted my form based on your post, and I wanted to say thank you for bringing it to our attention!

By the way, you might want to connect with Robbie Lockie. He's created an AI tool specifically designed to enhance the form-filling experience, helping to send a pre-filled yet personalized message when sending feedback, petitions, and similar communications. It could be worth reaching out to see if there's potential to integrate with his AI solution.

Hey @Maxtandy, thanks for the kind words and for your insightful questions!
You're right, it's important to be transparent about the data.

To answer your questions: 
Participants: The 70,000 engagements refer to the total number of interactions (likes, comments, shares) across all our platforms. The 600+ daily check-ins are from our WeChat Mini Program, which is a separate platform used for tracking individual participation.

Reach: The 7 million people reached refers to the estimated number of individuals who saw our campaign materials across various platforms. This includes social media posts, ads, and media coverage. 

Follow-through: You're right, the follow-through rate is lower than we'd like, but it's still a significant number of people making changes to their diet.

Non-binary: It's great to see such a high representation of non-binary individuals in our campaign. It's possible that there's a selection effect, as you mentioned, and individuals who are open to plant-based diets are also more likely to be open to diverse identities. 

Tree planting: We partnered with the Alashan SEE Ecology Association because we believe that addressing climate change is vital.

Thanks again for your interest and for engaging in this vital conversation!

I would really love to see the Good Food Institute (GFI) included on the list as well!

Thank you for highlighting our research! Check out the post we wrote about it in this forum.

I believe these are several successful applications of the identifiable victim effect: Maxine's Dash for Freedom, Okja, Babe, and Axel, Calf 269.

Some pitfalls to avoid, in my opinion:

• Some people seem to care specifically for the identified victim, like calf 269, rather than realizing they represent other sentient beings with their own stories and backgrounds.

• The identifiable victim effect doesn't impact everyone equally: individual differences in analytic processing style affect how different request types influence donations. Less-analytic thinkers donate more to a single identified victim than statistical victims or a combination; more-analytic thinkers showed no differences. This seems to be the story of our (analytical) movement. I think the curse of knowledge prevents us from understanding how little others know about biases, like the identified victim effect. We assume everyone is as rational as us and don't fully grasp the potential of a story about a single individual with a name and face.

What makes a single individual identifiable?

It can range from simply referring to them as the victim to creating a full-length film, and I suspect the film would be more effective (...)

But we don't always approach it this way. We often use a description that could apply to any cow in the dairy industry, just changing the name: This is Sarah. She produces nearly 11,000 gallons of milk—more than 200,000 cups—during her lifetime. Her calf will be taken away from her within hours of birth.

For fish, it's even worse - we describe them as masses and focus on the ecological damage, overlooking the animals themselves.

How many words could you use to describe your pet's personality?

I can describe two of our rabbits:

Judie is promotion-driven. She's always looking for treats. She's intelligent and responds to her name. Her favorite snack is cranberries; while eating, she's always searching for the source of her treats, not just focusing on what's in front of her. She's friendly, seeks company, is peaceful, and gets along with others. She's self-confident and happy.

Gaya is more prevention-driven. She's shy and looks for hiding spots. She seeks tunnels and security and doesn't get along with others. Nevertheless, she was the first to learn to play with a ball and get treats. Ball games became her favorite activity after she successfully found treats during her first play. She's more reserved and trusts her closer circle of friends.

We should be able to provide that description level for any identified victim.

Hi, thanks so much for being here! Could you please talk me through the rationale for assigning moral value to non-human animals?