I don't have a ChatGPT subscription. If I stop using their free tier, I think this has two effects: It benefits them because they can spend less resources on inference and it hurts them because investors lose trust in them. Do you think the expected net effect is positive or negative? Should I stop using their free tier if I want to protest against OpenAI? 

Also, I noticed that I can check multiple boxes on https://quitgpt.org/ and only one of them is "I cancelled my subscription". If I understand the footnote below the number displayed at the top (currently 1,200,000) correctly, it counts everyone who checked any of the boxes. I would be more curious about how high the number of only the people is, who canceled their subscription or commit to not paying for ChatGPT in the future.

Update: The Venue has changed. We will meet at Gunnar's place (address above).

The first four slides work now but unfortunately when I continue to the fifth slide, I get an error again.

Edit: It looks like that issue was now also fixed. Thanks :)

Is the problem on my side or is it also broken for others?

We have an e-mail address that people can use to contact us. That is used for communication with new people until they come to their first event where they can join the Signal group.

Creating a new group every year sounds like something that might work, but it might also lead to some confusion. For example, if you try to find something someone wrote a while back. I'll think about it. Thanks for the idea.

To prevent bots and too many inactive accounts, we only add people to our local group's Signal chat that we have met in person or that someone already knows. Also, remember that you can reset the invite link. This can help when you get overrun by bots. 

I think it makes sense to make it not too easy for people to get access to the group chat so that it feels private and personal, so people are less shy about writing there. 

We still need a good way of handling the problem of inactive accounts in the Signal group. If a person turned up only once three years ago, maybe they no longer need to be in the group. But what is a good way of having an overview, which accounts can be removed and which can't? Especially one that has as little overhead as possible. Does any of you have any Ideas about that? How do you handle this?

We currently have about 90 accounts in our group chat and maybe 20 or so people that actually write stuff in there and that come to events. I'd like to bring these two numbers closer together, so new people don't think they write to 90 people when something like 70 of them will probably never read it.

Nice, thanks for updating your post with the additional data. 

But I think there is an error in the new graph. The bars for Founders Pledge are in the color of Longview Philanthropy and the bars for Longview Philanthropy seem to be missing.

(edit: no longer true, post has been updated to fix this)

There is also this post by Luke Moore and Sjir Hoeijmakers. They only compare 2023 and 2024, but they have also included funding data for Founders Pledge, Logview Philantropy, Macroscopic Ventures and a lot of smaller funders/grantmakers/evaluators/fundraisers. And they calculated that when including all of those, funding has actually increased. Mainly because of more funding through Founders Pledge and Navigation Fund.

A follow-up of his post with newer number is now available: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/tech-pacs-are-closing-in-on-the-almonds

Thanks for the post. I am also currently sending out applications and encouraging messages like this are highly appreciated right now.