The last Open Thread was in October 2017, so I thought we were overdue for a new one.
Use this thread to post things that are awesome, but not awesome enough to be full posts. This is also a great place to post if you don't have enough karma to post on the main forum.
Consider giving your post a brief title to improve readability.
Separately, I'd wager that I feel pretty confident that taking into account all the possible long-term effects I can think of (population ethics, meat eating, economic development, differential technological development), that the effect of AMF is still net positive. I wonder if you really can model all these things? I previously wrote about five ways to handle flow-through effects in analysis and like this kind of weighted quantitative modeling.
I suspect it's basically impossible to model all the relevant far-future considerations in a way that feels believable (i.e. high confidence that the sign of all considerations is correct, plus high confidence that you're not missing anything crucial).
I share this intuition, but "still net positive" is a long way off from "most cost-effective."
AMF has received so much scrutiny because it's a contender for the most cost-effective way to give money – I'm skeptical we can make believable claim... (read more)