Also want to shout out @Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 and PauseAI's activism in getting people to call their senators. (You can commend this effort even if you disagree with an ultimate pause goal.) It could be worth following them for similar advocacy opportunities.

Would you/your parents be open to purchasing more plant protein sources? This could be foods like beans, soy milk, or something like a pea protein powder. 

Here's some more examples: https://www.chhs.colostate.edu/krnc/monthly-blog/plant-based-protein-a-simple-guide-to-getting-enough/

Some resources I know of:
- https://ethical.diet/
- https://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/
- https://reducing-suffering.org/vegetarianism-and-wild-animals/
 

I think the objection comes from the seeming asymmetry between over-attributing and under-attributing consciousness. It's fine to discuss our independent impressions about some topic, but when one's view is a minority position and the consequences of false beliefs are high, isn't there some obligation of epistemic humility?

Maybe the examples are ambiguous but they don't seem cherrypicked to me. Aren't these some of the topics Yudskowky is most known for discussing? It seems to me that the cherrypicking criticism would apply to opinions about, I don't know, monetary policy, not issues central to AI and cognitive science.

How about Melanie Mitchell’s Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans?

Oh totally (and you probably know much more about this than me). I guess the key thing I'm challenging is the idea that there was something like a very fast transfer of power resulting just from upgraded computing power moving from chimp-ancestor brain -> human brain (a natural FOOM), which the discussion sometimes suggests. My understanding is that it's more like the new adaptations allowed for cumulative cultural change, which allowed for more power.