Co-Founder of EA Philippines and Senior Product Designer at First Circle
Hey Nathan, I can imagine people abusing this though where they just keep making polls to gain karma. I think 100 karma gained via a poll is less value than 100 karma gained from posts or comments, so I'd rather balance it out by allowing people to downvote a comment. Currently, I've gotten 29 upvotes and 12 downvotes, so I think it's fair that the value of this poll is only worth roughly half the karma of a normal post/comment. I imagine in future polls, not everyone will downvote - only those that think karma gained through polls is not fair.
I'd be really interested to hear the arguments of anyone who upvoted this! I think this answer is at least plausible and worth fleshing out.
Good suggestions! Thanks for flagging. I think a better, longer-term way to solve this is we need a poll feature then on the Forum, rather than just the downvoting solution.
Hey Sebastian, thanks for writing this! Could you share an updated breakdown of how much was donated to each cause via ES over the past 12 months, similar to this graph that you showed here in your last report? I'd be interested to see it and I think others would too.
(e.g. it seems plausible to me that EA should make climate change our standard 'mainstream' cause rather than global health).
This is really interesting to hear from you. I wonder if community builders and people leading fundraising organizations should think about this more, and if they are willing to shift their focus and marketing to effective climate change charities than GiveWell charities.
Some fundraising-focused EA organizations still focus on global health ones only (i.e. Ayuda Efectiva from Spain and EA Norway's initiative, gieffektivt.no).
If you have time to answer, what further work do you think has to be done in this area before more EAs decide that climate change donations should be our "mainstream cause"? Or do you think more EAs should already be mainstreaming effective climate change charities more than GiveWell's already?
Are you willing to share your views Ben of whether a longtermist should donate to a top biorisk organization (i.e. Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security) versus a top AI safety organization (i.e. the Centre for Human Compatible AI)?
Both of the sample organizations I mentioned above are recommended by Founders Pledge, although I don't know how much to trust their recommendations in the x-risk space (I have read more about their research into climate change than x-risk organizations).
Given that Toby Ord thinks that the chance of an existential catastrophe from unaligned AI is 10% and from biorisk is 3.33%, then I might reasonably conclude that as long as CHAI is not 3x worse than JHU CHS, it would be more effective to donate to CHAI. I'm not sure how to trade off the efforts of organizations between those two spaces though, or if people should even do that - maybe it's just robustly good to donate to either, and that there's not much point trading off between the two causes. What do you think?
Thanks for pointing out that the donor could still give to EA funds if they win the donor lottery - I forgot about that. So yeah I would agree now that the donor lottery can't be worse than giving to EA Funds directly.
I guess a question I have is how much time should a donor who wins the donor lottery invest if they win it, and how many hours would be considered more than what an EA fund manager would spend?
Also, I do see that donors could possess idiosyncratic knowledge that fund managers don't have, or know funding opportunities that fund managers don't. Thanks for illustrating the example on biosecurity policy work in the Philippines. Unfortunately I don't think that biosecurity policy work in the Philippines is that effective to work on, given that it's probably better to do biosecurity policy work in countries with more developed research fields in biotechnology/biosecurity. I haven't looked into or thought about it that much but those would be my views currently.
Thanks so much for writing this answer Ben! And yes thanks for clarifying that Hauke's post is comparing GiveWell recommendations to climate change on a neartermist perspective. I didn't know that because I didn't read the full thing yet (and I think it would be quite difficult for me to fully understand).
Hey Max, thanks for this. Could you clarify what you mean by "narrow impact perspective"? Do you mean from a purely long-term impact perspective?
However, I'd also guess there are other options that are even better from just a narrow impact perspective. Examples include:Donation lotteriesThe EA Long-Term Future Fund
However, I'd also guess there are other options that are even better from just a narrow impact perspective. Examples include:
Also, I'm not sure how the donation lottery is a good opportunity from a long-term impact perspective. If I were a pure longtermist I would just trust the EA LTFF and I think that they are better suited to pick longtermist grant opportunities (given that they have more experience vetting organizations and people in this space) than me spending time myself evaluating longtermist opportunities.