Much of the interesting and difficult stuff about morality happens when there are different conflicting concerns at the stage. Virtue-ethicists on these matters seem much more handwavy than utilitarians or deontologists to me. Take for example the dilemma of what you should do if your host prepared you food with animal products without knowing that you are a vegan. Should you eat it? For utilitarians, it takes plenty of work to calculate the consequences but at least there is a rigorous process to base your policy upon. On page 142, paragraph 3 of this article, you may find a virtue-ethics treatment of the same dilemma, which seems very handwavy to me. 

Of course one article doesn't prove a trend, but often what I have seen is "oh there is this virtue, and there is this another virtue. Sometimes they might get into conflict, the virtue ethics is about finding the moderation between them. You will accomplish this through practical wisdom and getting more life experience" which is not informative at all. I don't think this process is better than trying to calculate the benefits and costs of your important actions.

What are best resources on what to expect during and after the development of Transformative AI, especially in optimistic scenarios where we have a future? There are of course a lot of resources on risk scenarios and how to prepare for them. I'm more curious about what other cause areas and individuals should expect and how they should best prepare for the future. For example, a paper that would fit that description would be "Economic Growth under Transformative AI" by Trammell and Korinek.

Points of agreement:

I agree that it is important to refrain from claiming that a vegan diet is the optimal choice for overall health.

It is crucial to emphasize the need for careful planning and the inclusion of necessary supplements when making people vegan.

Points of disagreement:

I don't see conclusive evidence that a vegan diet is less healthy than some other diet. While it is plausible that consuming small quantities of animal products could be more healthy compared to a strictly vegan diet, the evidence supporting such claims doesn't seem conclusive to me. The studies I have encountered predominantly compare average meat eaters with average vegans. My conclusion from the existing body of evidence is that "whole foods plant-based diets are sufficiently healthy. We don't know yet what precise diet is optimal for most people"

I do not agree that we are obligated to highlight the non-health-related costs of veganism. The inconveniences associated with this lifestyle are already apparent to most individuals based on their firsthand experiences. Furthermore, my personal experience suggests that people generally overestimate the difficulties involved and often find it easier than anticipated after trying it. Reiterating the challenges may actually lead to further misconceptions.

In other contexts, such as promoting alternative diets or lifestyles, it does not strike me as dishonest if people omit mentioning the non-health costs. For instance, consuming berries is healthy, despite them being among the more expensive fruits. If someone doesn't mention the costs of berries when they say "you should eat 1 portion of berries everyday" that seems OK to me.

In that context it seems more important to not deny the costs rather than actively bringing them up.

Things I'm not sure whether we agree about:

We should stick precisely to the statement of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and keep mentioning this in our conversations about veganism:

"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."

Thank you very much for taking your time to provide the quotes, I really appreciate it.

Thank you for the review, I look forward to reading the book. I'm curious whether there are any changes to Singer's views on killing animals and replaceability arguments in the books. In the previous versions of Animal Liberation and Practical Ethics, Peter Singer seems to argue at the same time that:

1. If a being is not self-aware and doesn't have a continuous psychological identity, then the satisfaction of their future preferences doesn't matter. 
2. The creation of a happy sentient being is net-positive.

The combination of these two views seems contradictory to me. If the creation of a happy sentient being is good, surely the continuation of that life should also be good. 

I don't really have a good response to your main question as I can't speak on behalf of the grantmakers. But I might at least contribute in the following way:

In our first and second years, EA Animal Welfare Fund and other funders were willing to fund us more than we requested. So if some individual donor gave money to us in our first and second years, we would basically ask for less money from EA Animal Welfare Fund and other sources.

This is no longer the case as EA Animal Welfare Fund doesn't make grants larger than $100k very often. For that reason, additional individual donations have a counterfactual positive impact on our growth. But I don't know if additional individual contributions lead the grantmakers to grant less money to us. That is something grantmakers can speak about.

This is extremely exciting. Thank you!

Best of luck!