Hey folks, popping in here to share a new piece that I thought might be of interest to friends in EA. I have a feeling you'll know a few of the people mentioned, and there are lots of exclusive details about Dustin Moskovitz's work that you might not know about.

Our publication, Puck, requires a subscription — but you can trade an email to read a story, do a free trial, or consider subscribing! I write about political and philanthropic donors, and am going to spend a lot of the year covering their moves ahead of the November race.

Here's the piece, and here are the first few paragraphs:

On a Thursday in February, the same morning that he was scheduled to meet with the widow of Alexey Navalny, Joe Biden found himself at the Fairmont Hotel, atop Nob Hill, staring at a total stranger half his age. Dustin Moskovitz, the 39-year-old billionaire seated across from him, was probably more responsible than any other donor for vaulting Biden into the presidency. And yet, somehow, the two had never met.

Moskovitz, like the other Harvard kids who won the roommate lottery with Mark Zuckerberg and became Silicon Valley royalty, is often dismissed as some accidental co-founder of Facebook, the ultimate example of being in the right place at the right time. But Moskovitz caught lightning in a bottle a second time with Asana, the public software company he founded in 2008. He and his partner in all things, former Wall Street Journal reporter Cari Tuna, whom he met on a blind date, would become the patron saints of effective altruism—particularly during the post-S.B.F. correction—with $25 billion to dole out through their Open Philanthropy charity. 

Moskovitz is unlike any other ultra-wealthy donor I have covered: insanely intelligent and well-read on political topics, but also skeptical, almost hostile, toward the influence-peddling game. For all his earnestness, he has sometimes appeared to shirk the civic duty he extols, shying away from using his money to achieve his political objectives. In September 2016, before committing $20 million to groups backing Hillary Clinton, he wrote a Medium essay entitled “Compelled to Act” that bared his introspection. “This decision was not easy, particularly because we have reservations about anyone using large amounts of money to influence elections,” he wrote. “That said, we believe in trying to do as much good as we can, which in this case means using the tools available to us.” He would later express regret about getting involved in the election too late. 

Four years later, Moskovitz spent more $50 million to elect Biden—and the real number, accounting for dark money donations, is probably more like twice that, I’m told. The ostensible predicate of the Moskovitz-Biden summit at the Fairmont, previously unreported, was to discuss safety in artificial intelligence, a topic that has consumed Dustin during the last year or two, as it has for so many effective altruists. But the subtext was obvious: Wouldn’t it be great if Moskovitz and Tuna could fork over that amount of cash again? Shortly thereafter, the couple cut at least one “super-max” check ($929,000) to the Biden campaign, I’m told, and I hear this is just the start. “Cari and I were excited to meet President Biden and thank him for his work,” Moskovitz told me.

Comments15


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I am so grateful to Moskovitz and Tuna for making these donations.

This coming November is — technically— a US election. That being said, if Trump were to win, it would lead to worsened security and immense suffering nationally and internationally. The US cannot let Trump become President and must do everything possible to prevent this from happening (barring illegal or unethical actions).

From my POV, supporting Biden by ensuring he gets the votes he needs seems like the only viable option. If you have other ideas please share them!

This election is absolutely critical. How can we strategize and coordinate with the aim of avoiding the worst outcome? What organizations/ who is working on this, either in or outside of EA? If you’re not comfortable posting,pleasemessage me.

  • please forgive me in advance for not explaining my rationale fully; I do not currently have access to clean internet network or computer so am typing on my phone.

Thanks for sharing. I agree that this election is atypical.

Can you all help me understand why this is getting downvoted? At the moment the comment’s karma is -2, though 6 people have agreed and 3 have disagreed.

Is the downvoting likely occurring because:

A) I shouldn’t have written this as a response to the above post.

B) I did not provide sufficient rationale.

C) You prefer Trump over Biden.

D) You don’t believe electing Trump would threaten national and international security / increase cumulative suffering.

E) You believe that voting for a write in candidate or third party has a real chance at being successful.

F) Something else (I’d be grateful if you specify).

Thanks for the feedback.

I didn’t vote, but I’d guess that people are trying to discourage politicisation on the forum?

Interesting, thanks for sharing!

I can see how that may be the case and I appreciate your feedback. It made me think.

I believe there can be value in keeping a space politically neutral, but that there are circumstances that warrant exceptions and that this is one such case. If Trump wins, I believe that moral progress will unravel and several cause areas will be rendered hopeless.

If there had been a forum in existence before WW2, I wonder if posts expressing concerns about Hitler or inquiring about efforts to counter actions of Nazis would have been downvoted. I certainly hope not.

This post captures some of my feelings for why I don't think we should make exceptions for US elections: 

https://www.benlandautaylor.com/p/the-four-year-locusts 

See also: 

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer 

For people not clicking through the first link, I thought this youtube video was pretty impressive: almost a hundred years of leading politicians claiming that each election is the or one of the most important elections of our lives / the century / all time.

Good illustration! I'd be curious how many people saying 2024 is the most important will in 2028 think 2024 was more important?

I did like the 1:32 bit where Obama says "this is... certainly the most important election in my lifetime". Which I take to be him making fun of this trope.

Fair point.

OTOH, If Trump wins or “wins” in 2024, I’m honestly not sure a legitimate election would be possible in 2028, in which case 2024 would have been the most important.

Hoping 2024 is legitimate. There are justified concerns that Trump will not accept defeat (assuming legitimate defeat) and will stop at nothing to regain power. He is a very dangerous man.

Thanks for sharing a summary of the content in addition to the link! Super helpful as I do not have streaming right now and am trying to avoid hyperlinks.

It makes sense that politicians would say this kind of thing leading up to an election. However, the futures that these 2 candidates are proposing are wildly different. I know that I am not alone (neither here on the forum nor IRL) in believing that this election will be a tipping point and will have implications that ripple far beyond just the US.

Thanks for sharing:

Curious as to your take on this: If this forum existed prior to WW2 and there was a post suggesting that it was imperative to prevent Hitler from gaining power, would you have felt that post should not have been made?

I do agree that exceptions can be a slippery slope, and certainly don’t think all US elections warrant exception. This one has potential to accelerate harm globally and is occurring in one of the most powerful countries in the world. US citizens can influence its outcome. This election will have global ramifications spanning generations. If some do not feel this is a moral imperative, that’s okay, but I am not sure why downvoting my post would feel like the appropriate course of action.

Sorry for not engaging with the links you posted. I have had cybersecurity issues and have been advised to be more careful about clicking on unfamiliar links and to avoid certain forums. This is a bummer, as I really enjoyed some of that content .

I have had cybersecurity issues and have been advised to be more careful about clicking on unfamiliar links and to avoid certain forums. 

Someone told you not to go on lesswrong for cybersecurity reasons?

That was my interpretation, though the specific forums in question were not named directly so I cannot be certain.

Wow, this went from a karma level 8 to a 1 in under an hour.

I typically view this forum as a place where civil discourse ought to be, and often is, encouraged. This downvoting feels a bit like a unique form of censorship.

I would love to understand how people are thinking about this.

Curated and popular this week
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
Over the years, I have learned many things that are rarely taught about doing cost-benefit or welfare analysis. Here are a few things that I often end up repeating when I mentor individuals or teams working on these kinds of projects: A Point Estimate is Always Wrong For any purpose other than an example calculation, never use a point estimate. Always do all math in terms of confidence intervals. All inputs should be ranges or probability distributions, and all outputs should be presented as confidence intervals. Do not start with a point estimate and add the uncertainty later. From day one, do everything in ranges. Think in terms of foggy clouds of uncertainty. Imagine yourself shrinking the range of uncertainty as you gather more data. This Google Sheets Template allows you to easily set up Monte Carlo estimations that turn probabilistic inputs into confidence-interval outputs. Use Google Sheets I have experience programming in half a dozen languages, including R. Sometimes they are useful or necessary for certain kinds of data analysis. But I have learned that for almost all cost-benefit analyses, it is best to use Google Sheets, for several reasons. The main one is transparency. A cost-benefit or welfare analysis is a public-facing document, not an academic one. You should not use esoteric tools unless absolutely necessary. Anyone in your society with basic literacy and numeracy should be able to read over and double-check your work. When you are done and ready to publish, you make your Sheet visible to everyone, and add a link to it in your report. Then anyone can see what you did, and effortlessly copy your code to refine and extend it, or just play around with different priors and assumptions. This transparency also helps improve results and correct mistakes as you are doing the work. The more people review your math, the better it will be. The number of people who are willing and able to look over a spreadsheet is orders of magnitude higher than the
Recent opportunities in Community
58