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🔹
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Need help planning your career? Probably Good’s 1-1 advising service is back! After refining our approach and expanding our capacity, we’re excited to once again offer personal advising sessions to help people figure out how to build careers that are good for them and for the world. Our advising is open to people at all career stages who want to have a positive impact across a range of cause areas—whether you're early in your career, looking to make a transition, or facing uncertainty about your next steps. Some applicants come in with specific plans they want feedback on, while others are just beginning to explore what impactful careers could look like for them. Either way, we aim to provide useful guidance tailored to your situation. Learn more about our advising program and apply here. Also, if you know someone who might benefit from an advising call, we’d really appreciate you passing this along. Looking forward to hearing from those interested. Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions. Finally, we wanted to say a big thank you to 80,000 Hours for their help! The input that they gave us, both now and earlier in the process, was instrumental in shaping what our advising program will look like, and we really appreciate their support.
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
18
Call for Hackathon Participants: Building AI Tools for Animal Advocacy
Sam Tucker-Davis
· · 1m read
1
1
9
An International Collaborative Hub for Advancing AI Safety Research
Cody Albert
· · 6m read
0
0
6
80,000 Hours is hiring for an Engagement Specialist
2 authors
· · 7m read
2
2
View more