I haven't thought about this a lot, but my impression is this doesn't work for smeared probability distributions and a medium level of risk aversion?
Let's say Alice thinks there is still a 20% chance AGI doesn't happen super fast / doesn't have transformative impact and she needs to pay back a loan in 10 years. Then if she doesn't want to take the risk of not being able to pay in these timelines, she cannot really donate all of the loan now.
On the other hand, a 20% chance that Alice has to donate a lot of money to global health doesn't look like such a big risk, at least if she doesn't have to donate everything right away.
But maybe the difference here is my implicit assumption that owing donations to Bob isn't a big of a risk as owing money to a bank, because the former might cut Alice more slack and give her more time to pay.
Hi JoA,
thank you for the thoughtful reply! I think what you say about insect farming makes sense, I also like this cause area a lot. Although it looks like I am more worried than you about the indirect effects on other farming practices, like fish farming or factory farming of land animals.
And thank you for the link to the Tomasik post, he makes good points! Do you think I should change the original wording?