Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Toby Tremlett🔹
4 min read 4

65

Effective givingAnimal welfareBuilding effective altruismAnnouncements and updatesDonation ElectionGiving Season (2024)Effective Altruism ForumAnimal Welfare FundRethink PrioritiesShrimp Welfare Project
Frontpage

This year’s Donation Election Winners are… no suspense needed… Rethink Priorities, the EA Animal Welfare Fund and the Shrimp Welfare Project!

The prize money will be split based on final vote share, like so:

Thanks again to everyone who voted in the election (all 485 of you[1]), donated to the fund, or participated in the discussion. And a massive thank you to all the organisations who posted for marginal funding week. You can read about them here or listen to many of their posts on this Spotify playlist.

Some more stats

Below is a table listing the winners and the top three runners-up. I’ve listed each candidate’s total votes, i.e., the number of final votes[2] that rank the candidate anywhere on their list and the number of votes that rank them first place.

Winners

Total votes. [3]

Number of 1st place votes.
Rethink Priorities24932
EA Animal Welfare Fund25160
Shrimp Welfare Project26036
Runners up  
Against Malaria Foundation18744
Pause AI US16643
Wild Animal Initiative19224

The chart below shows that EA AWF was the most popular first choice, the Shrimp Welfare Project was the most popular second and third choice, and Rethink Priorities was the most popular fourth choice. 

This graph shows the number of votes per ranking for each of the winners. 

You might wonder- what would happen if we eliminated more candidates? 

If we eliminate one more candidate, the Shrimp Welfare Project drops off, and most of their votes go to the EA Animal Welfare Fund:

If we eliminate another candidate, we get:

If we'd narrowed it down to one candidate, the EA Animal Welfare Fund would have won. 

Runners up

As a reminder— this year, we used ranked-choice voting. To get the winners, we first look at everyone’s top-ranked candidates and eliminate the candidate ranked top on the least votes. All voters who had the eliminated candidate as their top-ranked candidate have all their votes moved up one for the next round (so in round 2, the candidate they ranked as a second choice will be treated as a top choice). This process is repeated until we are left with three candidates.

The final runner-up (the last candidate to be eliminated) was the Against Malaria Foundation. When they were eliminated, their votes went to:

  • Rethink Priorities: 27 votes
  • EA Animal Welfare Fund: 11 votes
  • Shrimp Welfare Project: 10 votes

Below is a graph of the votes per ranking for the top three runners-up, alongside the winners. You can look closer at this data (and all the voting data) here. 

A reminder — where this money will go.

Rethink Priorities — $9484

Rethink Priorities has more ideas than resources, so extra funding can go to many promising projects. For example:

  • $50,000 could pay for research into the global health burden of fungal diseases, a potentially impactful area where good analysis doesn’t yet exist.
  • $33,000 could allow the Worldview Investigations team to apply their moral weights work to government spending decisions by finding a way to represent the moral weights of different species in financial terms.
  • $60,000 could allow Rethink Priorities to survey US public attitudes toward the potential sentience of AI systems.

This list was selected fairly randomly from Rethink's marginal funding post. For more, I recommend reading the full post.

Donate

Shrimp Welfare Project — $7844

Shrimp Welfare project’s overheads and program costs are covered until the end of 2026, so marginal funding this giving season will go towards their Humane Slaughter Initiative. 

For $55k (source: marginal funding post), the Humane Slaughter Initiative buys a stunner, which will be used by shrimp producers. Not only does a stunner directly make the deaths of a minimum of 120 million shrimps per year more humane, but the Humane Slaughter Initiative also aims to “catalyse industry-wide adoption by deploying stunners to the early adopters in order to build towards a tipping point that achieves critical mass”- in other words, if the use of stunners catches on, many more shrimps will be impacted. 

Donate

EA Animal Welfare Fund — $8271  

In 2024, AWF has distributed $3.7M across 51 grants. Next year, they estimate they can distribute $6.3M at the same bar.

This is because:

  • Projects they have already granted to are growing but still aren’t big enough to be funded by larger funders.
  • The main bottleneck on them granting to more projects is the amount of money they have to grant, not the number of good projects. They accept a lower portion of applications when they have less funding.
  • Good Ventures, the foundation that funds OpenPhilanthropy, has pulled out of some animal welfare areas, such as insect farming, shrimp welfare, and wild animal welfare. Because of this, funding gaps are opening up at established organisations, which AWF would love to fill.

You can read more about their past grants here.

And more about why their room for more funding is so large here.

Or, simply:

Donate

Before you go:

  • Please email us (forum at centreforeffectivealtruism dot org), message me, or comment below with any feedback you have about the Donation Election.
  • If I haven't answered all your data questions, consider digging around the anonymised voting data from the election and commenting more data insights below. 

 

  1. ^

    This might seem odd because the numbers on the banner add up to less than this (they add to 359 to be precise). But that's because only voters who ranked one of the winning candidates are represented in the banner totals.

  2. ^

     Note that we only record the most recent vote for each voter, the “final vote”.

  3. ^

     The number of votes that contain a ranking for this charity.

65

0
0
5

Reactions

0
0
5
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments4


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
OscarD🔸15
1
0
4

Thanks for sharing the raw data!

Interestingly, of the 44 people who ranked every charity, the candidates with most last-placed votes were: PauseAI = 10, VidaPlena = ARMoR = 5, Whylome = 4, SWP = AMF = Arthropoda = 3, ... . This is mostly just noise I'm guessing, except perhaps that it is some evidence PauseAI is unusually polarising and a surprisingly large minority of people think it is especially bad (net negative, perhaps). 

Also here is the distribution of how many candidates people ranked:


I am a bit surprised there were so many people who voted for none of the winning charities - I would have thought most people would have some preference between the top few candidates, and that if their favourite charity wasn't going to win they would prefer to still choose between the main contenders. Maybe people just voted once initially and then didn't update it based on which candidates had a chance of winning.

Reply
Jason13
0
0
2

The all-completers are very likely not representative of the larger group of voters, but it's still interesting to see the trends there. I find it curious that a number of orgs that received lots of positive votes (and/or ranked higher than I would have expected in the IRV finish) also received lots of last-place votes among all-voters.

PauseAI US isn't surprising to me given that the comments suggest a wide range of opinions on its work, from pivotal to net negative. There were fewer votes in 34th to 38th place, which is a difference from some other orgs that got multiple last-place votes.

I'm guessing people who put Arthropoda and SWP last don't think invertebrate welfare should be a cause area, and that people who voted AMF last are really worried about the meat-eater problem. It was notable and surprising to me that 16 of the 52 voters who voted 34+ orgs had AMF in 34th place or worse.

For Vida Plena, I speculate that some voters had a negative opinion on VP's group psychotherapy intervention based on the StrongMinds/HLI-related discussions about the effect size of group psychotherapy in 2022 & 2023, and this caused them to rank VP below orgs on which they felt they had no real information or opinion. I'm not aware of any criticism of VP as an org, at least on the Forum. There are a lot of 34th to 38th place votes for Vida Plena as well (of 52 who voted at least 34 orgs, 32 had VP in one of these slots).

I don't know enough about ARMoR or Whylome to even speculate.

Reply
huw8
0
0
1
2

I was curious about the thing with Vida Plena too (since I work for Kaya Guides, and we’re generally friendly). I cooked up a quick data explorer for the three mental health charities:

It’s an interesting pattern. It does appear like Kaya Guides and Vida Plena got a pretty equal number of partial votes, suggesting that people favourable to those areas ranked them equally highly. But among completers, Vida Plena got a lot of lower votes—even more so than ACTRA! Given that ACTRA is very new, I think they make a good control group, which to me implies something like ‘completers think Vida Plena is likely to be less favourable than the average unknown mental health charity’.

Your hypothesis makes sense to me; many in the EA community don’t know the specifics of Vida Plena’s program or its potential for high cost-effectiveness, probably due to previous concerns around HLI’s evaluations. I personally think this is unfounded, and clearly many partial voters agree, as Vida Plena ranked quite highly even if you assume that some number of these partial voters sorted by a GHD focus and only voted for GHD charities (higher than us!).

Reply
Toby Tremlett🔹5
0
0

Noting here that the totals going to each charity have been updated (upwards), due to a matching miscalculation. This also means that we have hit two rather than one of the collective rewards- so keep an eye out for that!

Reply
More from Toby Tremlett🔹
59
Existential Choices Symposium with Will MacAskill and other special guests (3-5pm GMT Monday)
Toby Tremlett🔹
· · 2m read
5
5
82
Announcing: Existential Choices Debate Week (March 17-23)
Toby Tremlett🔹
· · 6m read
23
23
49
Cause neutrality doesn't mean all EA causes matter equally
Toby Tremlett🔹
· · 2m read
5
5
View more
Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This is a linkpost for a new paper called Preparing for the Intelligence Explosion, by Will MacAskill and Fin Moorhouse. It sets the high-level agenda for the sort of work that Forethought is likely to focus on. Some of the areas in the paper that we expect to be of most interest to EA Forum or LessWrong readers are: * Section 3 finds that even without a software feedback loop (i.e. “recursive self-improvement”), even if scaling of compute completely stops in the near term, and even if the rate of algorithmic efficiency improvements slow, then we should still expect very rapid technological development — e.g. a century’s worth of progress in a decade — once AI meaningfully substitutes for human researchers. * A presentation, in section 4, of the sheer range of challenges that an intelligence explosion would pose, going well beyond the “standard” focuses of AI takeover risk and biorisk. * Discussion, in section 5, of when we can and can’t use the strategy of just waiting until we have aligned superintelligence and relying on it to solve some problem. * An overview, in section 6, of what we can do, today, to prepare for this range of challenges.  Here’s the abstract: > AI that can accelerate research could drive a century of technological progress over just a few years. During such a period, new technological or political developments will raise consequential and hard-to-reverse decisions, in rapid succession. We call these developments grand challenges.  > > These challenges include new weapons of mass destruction, AI-enabled autocracies, races to grab offworld resources, and digital beings worthy of moral consideration, as well as opportunities to dramatically improve quality of life and collective decision-making. > > We argue that these challenges cannot always be delegated to future AI systems, and suggest things we can do today to meaningfully improve our prospects. AGI preparedness is therefore not just about ensuring that advanced AI systems are alig
Recent opportunities in Animal welfare
20
The Humane League is hiring a Director of Philanthropy
Caroline Mills
· · 2m read
0
0
37
Announcing the Compassionate Future Summit 2025
Ruth_Seleo
· · 1m read
0
0
14
Starting Now: Animal Charity Evaluators is hosting a live AMA
Animal Charity Evaluators
· · 1m read
0
0
View more