Finance Lead at CEA. Interested in cause prioritisation, interactions between cause areas, global catastrophic risk, and institutional changes that could help shape the long-term future. Also likes coffee and watching The Simpsons.
Someone shared this link with me which supports your view that lump-sum is generally better, especially if you don't have diminishing utility.
Hey - I'm the finance lead at CEA, of which EA funds is one part. Anyone can donate to EA Funds, and you should be able to do this from Germany. Are you concerned that doing so means you're not donating tax-efficiently since the funds aren't registered charities in Germany?
If so, my colleague Sam wrote this post arguing that donating effectively might mean ignoring tax efficiency, and I agree, depending on your alternative.
For example, if you were planning to donate only to AMF, and if there was a German AMF you were planning to donate to (I don't know if there is) which would you give tax deductibility, then I think it's better to donate to the German AMF and get the tax deductibility.
But if you were comparing a general charity that would give you tax deductibility in Germany, and if you thought the EA Funds option (e.g. the Founders Pledge climate fund, the Long-Term Future Fund) was >50% better value for money than your alternative in Germany, then my view is that it'd be better to just lose the tax efficiency and donate directly.
No idea - I think it most depends on the specifics of your situation. On average I think people who start organisations later in their life using their experience and contacts are likely to be more successful.
I think staying where you are seems like a good option. There seems to be an assumption that just because you stay in the same job for the next few years you'll automatically be there for the next 15 - is that really true? Also maybe you could make a public commitment to leave after X years, or donate your income above a certain level to avoid getting lured in by the money side of it.
Interesting, thanks for posting about it!
It sounds like if you've been rejected from studying masters courses then that's useful feedback. Even for people who have done well on those courses, I think there are many more applicants than places to work in philosophy.
And if you're already trying to overcome really steep odds, by working in academia with eight years working independently, then this might not be the area you're best suited to.
I don't know about it but there could be work in neuroscience or psychology that you might find interesting.
Also have you seen this?
Some jobs here
I don't think anyone can give you a direct answer - it'll depend on your own personal circumstances, but if you've got savings then I can vouch that option 2 could be good. Have you tried applying for any jobs in that space?
Great to hear from you. Here are some of my own thoughts (not official in any way at all, and people in the community have all sorts of different views). I share your interest in AI safety and climate change. Is there an AI safety community in Germany? If not people thinking about AGI, there's probably some big universities working on near-term control problems that could be interesting. It might be good to meet some other people working in the area.
Also if you're interested in climate and AI, this a huge field of people working on everything from forecasting to flood prediction to increasing crop yields - have you tried applying for any jobs in that space?