Late to the party but one way to solve this could be to set a norm in EA organizations to move internal discussions to the EA forum. A lot of us work remote already and we are used to written discussions. Moving them here wouldn't add that much friction and would do a lot to transparency/community engagement.

Thanks for sharing that! I was actually exploring that topic from an animal welfare perspective recently, i.e., can video games lead to shifts in perspectives, similar to documentaries. I'd bet yes since playing a character might lead to more perspective-taking.

Some examples of games having tried this in the animal welfare space:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/898890/Endling_Extinction_is_Forever/

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2768030/Saborus/ ​

I'm curious: Which elements of the game had most impact on you rethinking AI welfare? Was it the forced choice making you describe? First-person perspective? 3D? Storyline? Curious!

Agree with this, some more points
* Articles have visuals with a broad range of quality and without any visual consistency, aspect ratios, ... so making the visuals front and center will always look chaotic
* The visuals take attention away from the titles. When I go to a front page I want to scan content and the visuals make that really hard
* It looks a bit like vibe-slop (claude tends to add these colored bars on the side of tiles like the blue bars on the frontpage now), it's also not clear why some tiles have this and some don't, is it unread?
* There seem to be some bugs: I just clicked on an article from featured, then clicked back, and the featured showed me list not tiles even though I had it set to tiles before. I think it actually showed me the New and upvoted section then but marked Featured bold

Agree on this 100%. I originally wanted to bake in that line of reasoning in this article but I felt it was already controversial enough as it is hahaha. This is another example of everybody claiming marginal impact adding up to 10x of the imapct we actually had. 

Happy to write a post about this together at some point!

The main point I'm trying to make is not that we should pay all people market-rate salaries, but that, at least, we should make this assumption in cost effectiveness calculations. Then actually paying those salaries would be the logical next step but maybe a step too far for marketing / market dynamics reasons.

Let me answer to two points you made:

In my view, there are several reasons for this. One important aspect is probably that many employees attribute the impact, at least partly, to themselves personally. 

This is the core of what I'm trying to get at. I am trying to argue that the imaginary pay cut vs a comparable for-profit job the employees are taking is the relative impact they are having. Therefore when we do cost effectiveness calculations, we should factor that in, so we don't overpromise cost-effectivness to donors. Because employees are also donors, just with their time instead of their money.

Another aspect is certainly that working at a charity is often simply more enjoyable because you are surrounded by inspiring people, typically have more autonomy, and so on.

This I fully agree with. So when comparing wiht for-profit salaries we should probably compare not with cut-throat banks but with companies that have a similar vibe/culture. I know that's hard but some kind of estimate is better than nothing I think.

hahaha yes totally missed this, thank you!!

Hahaha yes I love that compensating paradox. I think the issue with that one is that it's very narrow-minded and short-term focused. Sure in the short term for this specific intervention compensation might work, but as a movement we lose if we think like this.

Also agree that building movement and activating volunteers is value that probably isn't always accounted for.

Curious: Are you aware of these been used in the field / cost-effectiveness estimations etc.? I'm aware of the concept but have never seen it actually being used. But that I'm also not that deep in that space.

Great opt-in vs opt-out framing, that snarky comment of mine about tricking people was written too fast!

About that example: I think you meant to write "at charity B" instead of "at charity A"?
* Charity A: 1 employees at market rate, one unit of impact > 1 impact for donor
* Charity B: 1 employees at market rate, one unit of impact  + 1 volunteers with 1 impact > 2 impact for donor

I think that the donor should not have "2 counterfactual impact" in this case. But maybe I am misunderstanding things.

Let's play with some more examples
* Charity C: 1 employee and 10000 volunteers, 10001 impact total. Should the donor really get 10001 impact? To me that feels really off

* Charity D: The employee also becomes a volunteer but does the same job. In a way the employee is "donating" their salary and becomes the donor. Should the employee now get "2 impacts"? That again feels off? Are they somehow better than the other volunteer?

* Charity E: 100 donors, all donating $1. It's a blind kickstarter campaign and the charity can only do the intervention if they raise 100, otherwise money back, but the donors don't know how many others already donated, so order doesn't matter. In a way each donor should get the full "counterfactual" impact because without each individual donor the fundraise would've failed. But again attributing the same full impact 100 times feels wrong.

Yes, I agree about the inspiring vs non-inspiring feelings and how this has impact.

I still feel there must be a way to flip this somehow and find a way to assign and recognise impact and contributions that feels motivating and uplifiting to everybody, but maybe that's for another post haha

Thanks for taking the time to write these comments, really appreciate it!