Hide table of contents

There have been a few EA initiatives promoting leaving a bequest to charity.

Particularly:

There's also a movement of inheritors committing to donate some of their wealth, e.g., GenerationPledge, some of whom have ties to EA.

To inform some upcoming conversations and initiatives on these (and potentially a more formal, anonymous survey), I wanted to get some rough feedback from the EA (Forum) community.

In the comment threads below, I break down the questions in the title of this post for comments and agree/disagree voting.[1]

In addition to agree/disagree voting (please), I encourage you to see these questions as jumping-off points. Feel free to leave expansive comments on your personal experience and thought processes. I also welcome feedback on the questions, and how they could be better posed.

Thanks in advance for your input.


    1. I wanted to get a GuidedTrack survey up for this, but I couldn't get it going in time. I thought GPT knew or could learn that syntax, but it was too slow. Anyways, I think an open conversation is also helpful. ↩︎

28

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


Comments12
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Wait a second I just realised a flaw in this system: I don’t think approval voting keeps track of how many people voted. Going forward PLEASE VOTE YES to this comment so I can keep count.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Actually I'm wrong -- you see this when you hover-over; thanks Jack. I'll delete this comment

Q8: Is it important for you that your parents would approve of you donating from your inheritance (i.e., would it make it easier for you to do so)?

Q7: Would you consider making a pledge to donate from your inheritance?

Q6: Would you consider donating some substantial share of your inheritance to effective charities?

Q5: Do you expect to inherit more than $100k (in US dollar equivalent value of all assets) from your parents?

Q4: Whether or not you have written a will or plan to do so soon... do you intend to leave some or all of your assets to an effective charity?

Q3: Would you like to write your will within the next year, if an individual or organization you trust would help you do it?

Q2: Have you written a will involving a bequest to an effective charity/charities?

Yes, I have no kids but a large family. When I started to create the will, I planned to leave all of my estate to the next generation of my family. I planned to create a fund they could access to participate in extracurricular educational activities they otherwise could not.

I realized it was going to be a lot harder for me to donate 10% while working, at least at my current salary. I still needed to build a bit of a safety net and wanted to contribute to an RRSP. So, while working on the draft, I decided to add a 10% bequest to GWWC. However, upon having the final copy drafted, I ended up changing the number to 50%. Once I had decided to add the clause for the bequest pledge, raising the number was very easy as it would have minimal impact on my life and my ability to prepare for economic hardship or emergencies (compared to an income pledge, which would be more difficult). 

I believe this is an excellent way for Longtermists to have a larger impact on the future, acting as a self-imposed inheritance tax. So long as the giving is directed towards high-impact / effective charities. I have been considering how to present this belief more objectively and rationally. Discovering how many more people would create a bequest of their estate vs an income pledge if it was made easy (Q3, for example). And then look at the output of that over the span of 1-2 generations vs, convincing the smaller number of people to donate immediately based on income.

@david_reinstein did you gather any data?

I didn't end up getting around to do a more formal survey. Obviously the one in the approval voting above is deeply unscientific and doesn't represent any particular defined sample. 
 

"Have you established a legally binding will?" (I.e., bequest, i.e., 'last will and testament')

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
Economic growth is a unique field, because it is relevant to both the global development side of EA and the AI side of EA. Global development policy can be informed by models that offer helpful diagnostics into the drivers of growth, while growth models can also inform us about how AI progress will affect society. My friend asked me to create a growth theory reading list for an average EA who is interested in applying growth theory to EA concerns. This is my list. (It's shorter and more balanced between AI/GHD than this list) I hope it helps anyone who wants to dig into growth questions themselves. These papers require a fair amount of mathematical maturity. If you don't feel confident about your math, I encourage you to start with Jones 2016 to get a really strong grounding in the facts of growth, with some explanations in words for how growth economists think about fitting them into theories. Basics of growth These two papers cover the foundations of growth theory. They aren't strictly essential for understanding the other papers, but they're helpful and likely where you should start if you have no background in growth. Jones 2016 Sociologically, growth theory is all about finding facts that beg to be explained. For half a century, growth theory was almost singularly oriented around explaining the "Kaldor facts" of growth. These facts organize what theories are entertained, even though they cannot actually validate a theory – after all, a totally incorrect theory could arrive at the right answer by chance. In this way, growth theorists are engaged in detective work; they try to piece together the stories that make sense given the facts, making leaps when they have to. This places the facts of growth squarely in the center of theorizing, and Jones 2016 is the most comprehensive treatment of those facts, with accessible descriptions of how growth models try to represent those facts. You will notice that I recommend more than a few papers by Chad Jones in this
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
This post summarizes a new meta-analysis from the Humane and Sustainable Food Lab. We analyze the most rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that aim to reduce consumption of meat and animal products (MAP). We conclude that no theoretical approach, delivery mechanism, or persuasive message should be considered a well-validated means of reducing MAP consumption. By contrast, reducing consumption of red and processed meat (RPM) appears to be an easier target. However, if RPM reductions lead to more consumption of chicken and fish, this is likely bad for animal welfare and doesn’t ameliorate zoonotic outbreak or land and water pollution. We also find that many promising approaches await rigorous evaluation. This post updates a post from a year ago. We first summarize the current paper, and then describe how the project and its findings have evolved. What is a rigorous RCT? We operationalize “rigorous RCT” as any study that: * Randomly assigns participants to a treatment and control group * Measures consumption directly -- rather than (or in addition to) attitudes, intentions, or hypothetical choices -- at least a single day after treatment begins * Has at least 25 subjects in both treatment and control, or, in the case of cluster-assigned studies (e.g. university classes that all attend a lecture together or not), at least 10 clusters in total. Additionally, studies needed to intend to reduce MAP consumption, rather than (e.g.) encouraging people to switch from beef to chicken, and be publicly available by December 2023. We found 35 papers, comprising 41 studies and 112 interventions, that met these criteria. 18 of 35 papers have been published since 2020. The main theoretical approaches: Broadly speaking, studies used Persuasion, Choice Architecture, Psychology, and a combination of Persuasion and Psychology to try to change eating behavior. Persuasion studies typically provide arguments about animal welfare, health, and environmental welfare reason
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is 99% automation of fully-remote jobs in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achieve 25% on its Frontier Math dataset (thou