Recently, I've encountered an increasing number of misconceptions, in rationalist and effective altruist spaces, about what Open Philanthropy's Global Catastrophic Risks (GCR) team does or doesn't fund and why, especially re: our AI-related grantmaking. So, I'd like to briefly clarify a few things: * Open Philanthropy (OP) and our largest funding partner Good Ventures (GV) can't be or do everything related to GCRs from AI and biohazards: we have limited funding, staff, and knowledge, and many important risk-reducing activities are impossible for us to do, or don't play to our comparative advantages. * Like most funders, we decline to fund the vast majority of opportunities we come across, for a wide variety of reasons. The fact that we declined to fund someone says nothing about why we declined to fund them, and most guesses I've seen or heard about why we didn't fund something are wrong. (Similarly, us choosing to fund someone doesn't mean we endorse everything about them or their work/plans.) * Very often, when we decline to do or fund something, it's not because we don't think it's good or important, but because we aren't the right team or organization to do or fund it, or we're prioritizing other things that quarter. * As such, we spend a lot of time working to help create or assist other philanthropies and organizations who work on these issues and are better fits for some opportunities than we are. I hope in the future there will be multiple GV-scale funders for AI GCR work, with different strengths, strategies, and comparative advantages — whether through existing large-scale philanthropies turning their attention to these risks or through new philanthropists entering the space. * While Good Ventures is Open Philanthropy's largest philanthropic partner, we also regularly advise >20 other philanthropists who are interested to hear about GCR-related funding opportunities. (Our GHW team also does similar work partnering with many other philanthropist

🎧 We've created a Spotify playlist with this years marginal funding posts.  Posts with <30 karma don't get narrated so aren't included in the playlist.

I've had a couple of organisations ask me to clarify the Donation Election's vote-brigading rules. Understandably, they want to promote the donation election amongst their supporters, but they aren't sure to what extent this is vote-brigading. The answer is- it depends.  We want to avoid the Donation Election being a popularity contest/ favouring the candidates with bigger networks. Neither popularity, nor size of network, is perfectly correlated with impact.  If you'd like to reach out to your audience, feel free, but please don't tell them to vote for you. You can explain the event, and mention that you are a candidate, but we want the votes to inform us of the Forum audience's opinions of marginal impact of money donated to these charities, not to the strength of their networks.  I'm aware this exortation won't do all the work- we will also be looking into voting patterns, and new accounts (made after October 22, when the election was announced) won't be eligible to vote. 

Well known EA sympathizer Richard Hanania writes about his donation to the Shrimp Welfare Project.

Re: a recent quick take in which I called on OpenPhil to sue OpenAI: a new document in Musk's lawsuit mentions this explicitly (page 91)