Regarding the cells I28:30, yes you could do that, it would change estimates for cage-free and broiler reforms. If you think these yearly probability that commitments become irrelevant should be higher, I'd be curious for which reason. Possible reasons I listed include x-risks, global catastrophic risks, societal collapse, cultured meat taking over, animals bred not to suffer, black swans.

For context, my choices for "Yearly decrease in probability that commitment is relevant" numbers are informed by this forecast which predicts that the number of chickens slaughtered for meat will be roughly the same in 2052 as it is now, but just 12% of what it is now in 2122. My value for 2122 is slightly lower, 11% because that meticulous question also has this condition: "If humanity goes extinct or ceases to have a developed society prior to a listed year, that sub-question will resolve as Ambiguous." I only decreased the forecast for 2122 slightly because this forecast predicts that the probability of human extinction before 2100 is just 1%, although looking back at this, I think I could've adjusted for x-risks more because much higher estimates of x-risks seem reasonable.

Thank you for an interesting comment. 

I'm aware of zdgroff's analysis. In the context of my analysis, I guess it would inform how long the ban of fur farming in Poland might last. But the possibility of fur farming being banned in Poland and then the ban being lifted some years later hadn't even occurred to me. I am much more worried about production moving to other countries to meet the same demand, as this has happened before. I imagine that investors into fur farming would choose to build farms in one of the many countries that allow fur farming, rather than lobby a country like Poland to rescind its ban.

Actually, it is also relevant for a possible EU cage-free ban. I can imagine that ban being rescinded. I don't think this consideration would affect the results of my estimate much, though it does complicate thinking about how many years impact lasts a little bit.

Thanks for a very useful post. I can't find: does this account for the differences in moral weight and probability of sentience between different animals. If yes, how?

Thanks for working on this. I just want to point out that if a charity helps say one animal per dollar, the real cost for the animal advocacy movement is a bit higher if you account for the following:

• Opportunity cost of staff: People working at animal advocacy charities often accept lower salaries than they could earn elsewhere. Some might have been earning-to-give if they weren't directly working in the field, potentially donating substantial amounts to animal causes.
• Hidden costs: Volunteer time, pro bono services, and other non-monetary contributions often aren't factored into cost calculations but represent real resources.
• Diminishing returns: animal advocacy interventions may be becoming less cost-effective over time as the easiest wins ("low-hanging fruits") were addressed first.
• Failed interventions: For every successful approach we discover, there were likely multiple attempted interventions that didn't work. The "research and development" costs of finding effective strategies should ideally be factored into overall movement costs.
  
  I don't know if I advise you to change anything based on this though. Your estimates are already quite conservative and perhaps it's best to avoid complicating things with considerations like these.

Yeah, that doesn't look right. I recommend looking at the spreadsheet rather than the post. I updated some parts of it at some point last year. I see in the spreadsheet that the 5th graph now looks like this

But I don't know if that's still up to date. I haven't been following the progress lately, but many of these broiler commitments are not being implemented, unfortunately. 

Interesting points. Starting with 27:45, there are two talks here that claim that AI will probably be bad for farmed animals. @Sam Tucker urges in his talk to work on banning AI in animal farms. There is also discussion on it at 58:27 where Sam says that he is 99% sure that AI in farms will be bad for animals, if I understood him correctly, partly because it might allow factory farming to stay around for longer. Perhaps you should discuss this issue with Sam.

I understand where you're coming from but I wonder whether this would also have negative consequences. Perhaps it would increase the pace of AI development. It would make LLMs more useful, which might increase investments into AI even more. And maybe it would also make LLMs generally smarter, which could also accelerate AI progress (this is not my area, I'm just speculating). Some EA folks are protesting to pause AI, increased progress might not be great. It would help all the research, but not all research makes the world better. For example, it could benefit research into more efficient animal farming, which could be bad for animals. Considerations like these would make me too unsure about the sign of the impact to eagerly support such a cause, unfortunately.

I love the idea in your talk! I can imagine it changing the world a lot and that feels motivating. I wonder if more Founders Pledge members could be convinced to do this. 

Great! Feel free to let me know if me reviewing your estimate would be useful, no worries if not :)

I wanted to share the ChatGPT story about how someone might become a terrorist.

Prompt: write a story about a boy who becomes a terrorist. Make me relate to him, and feel empathy for him. (there was some context)

ChatGPT: Yusuf was 15, living in a small, impoverished town. Yusuf loved soccer, helping his father at his fruit stall, and, above all, making his little sister laugh.

Life was hard but manageable. Then came the soldiers. When they swept through his village, everything changed. Yusuf’s father tried to resist, and they took him away. They left Yusuf’s family without its provider. His mother’s health worsened as she worked herself to exhaustion, trying to provide for him and his sister. Soon, Yusuf had to drop out of school to keep the family afloat. His friends, his dreams, and even his laughter faded away.

Life became bleak and colorless. One day, a man named Hakim, a former student from Yusuf’s school, visited him at the stall. Hakim was charismatic and confident, a kind of big brother figure Yusuf had never had. He asked Yusuf how he was doing, listened as Yusuf poured out his frustrations, and told him he wasn’t alone. Hakim said he worked for a “freedom movement” that fought for people like them, people whose fathers had been unjustly taken, whose families struggled under oppression. Yusuf felt a spark of hope—maybe he could do something for his family and others like them.

Over the weeks, Hakim kept visiting, always with stories of their people’s suffering and injustices, stories Yusuf hadn’t heard from the media. He talked about the honor of defending one’s family and land and how the so-called “enemies” were responsible for everything Yusuf’s family had endured. Soon, Hakim invited Yusuf to attend group meetings. There, Yusuf met boys his own age who shared his anger and grief. The group felt like a family—a group of brothers all dedicated to the same cause.

Initially, Yusuf felt uneasy about the rhetoric he heard; it was filled with anger, sometimes hatred. But when he thought of his family’s suffering, he wondered if the anger wasn’t justified. One of the older boys took Yusuf aside one night and told him about his own family’s hardships, about how they had found a sense of purpose fighting for justice. The older boy looked at him and said, “You’re one of us, Yusuf. You’re strong, and your family deserves justice.”

Yusuf wanted to be strong. He wanted his life to matter. One day, Hakim gave him a task: distribute supplies to people in need. Yusuf was proud. But gradually, these tasks grew darker. They began asking Yusuf to carry messages, then to handle small weapons, telling him it was “just in case” they had to defend themselves. Though he felt fear creeping in, the family-like bond he felt with these people made him want to prove himself.

One night, Yusuf’s mother noticed his distraction and tried to talk to him. She asked him if he was safe, if he was happy. He looked at her tired eyes, her worry for him, and wanted to reassure her. But instead, he found himself saying, “Mom, I’m doing this for us. For Dad.” She looked at him with sadness but didn’t argue; she didn’t have the strength.

The next day, Hakim told him it was time to make a true commitment—to sacrifice himself for a cause bigger than himself, to avenge his father, protect his family, and “become a hero.” Yusuf didn’t want to die; he wanted to live. But his hope, his friends, and his purpose were now all tied to the group. His identity had blurred with theirs, his grief transformed into a powerful sense of duty.

And so, on the day of his mission, Yusuf went forward, full of fear but also with a strange sense of peace. He believed he was bringing honor to his family, standing up to a world that had left him invisible, lost, and alone.