Agreed, and changed, though I preferred "grants" to "grant amounts"
This is a good idea - I considered making the original questions averages for this reason, but erred on this side of making the question simpler. As is, I think the variance around the underlying distribution outcomes is large enough to compensate for the variance in year to year grants, such that I would not expect a big difference between 2028-2032 average predictions and 2030 predictions, and I'm hesitant to ask too many questions until the current ones have received sufficient attention.
For the first question, you can see under "community stats" the number of unique users, currently 28.
For the second one you cannot see it on the page, I'm not sure why, but I'd guess its a similar ratio (I.e. approx half of the number of predictions)
Metaculus users give a 52% chance that global malaria deaths will be 90% lower in 2030 than they were in 2015. If that is the case, then I would expect their now highly rated malaria charities to be less cost effective than they are now.
The Open Phil grants DB is here:
Good Ventures has a similar database that only differs slightly.
"Private foundations must give 5% of their endowment annually, meaning EA orgs are giving $1.25b annually"
This is not true. Open Phil/ Good Ventures has recently donated approx $250m annually, and I think the reason they are not subject to a "5% of Dustin's wealth" limit is that he hasn't actually donated most of his assets to the foundation yet.
Aside from that, neither Open Phil nor Good Ventures are structured as private foundations (Open Phil is an LLC), so Moskowitz & Tuna aren't subject to the 5% payout rule anyway.
Without claiming to know a great deal about Hickel or his epistemics myself, I think if you are interested in forming an opinion on it yourself it might be worth sharing this Twitter thread from Max Roser (founder of Our World In Data) which does not portray Hickel as very rigorous and suggests he is somewhat dishonest.
Yes, absolutely. To be clear, I'm not committing to writing up all question suggestions, but I have written up some questions inspired by these suggestions and suggestions I've been sent privately already and will probably write more.
You can see questions I've written so far here (note not all are EA related) :
That's in pending now, as are a few other questions you may be interested in, though not identical to the ones you list.
I'll post a response here in a few weeks once most of the questions I intend to write are actually live with a summary.
"Will the US stock market close by 2120?"
For this, would you prefer to condition on something like there being no transformative AI, or not? I feel like sometimes these questions end up dominated by considerations like this, and it is plausible you care about this answer only conditional on something like this not happening.
Thanks for these!
"When will the longest-lived foundation or DAF owned by an EA make its last grant?" EA defined as someone who identifies as an EA as of this prediction
"When will the longest-lived foundation or DAF owned by an EA make its last grant?"
Just to be clear, you specifically mean to exclude not-yet-EAs who set up DAFs in, say, 2025?
"What annual real return will be realized by the Good Ventures investment portfolio 2022-2031?" Can be calculated by Form 990-PF, Schedule B, Part II, which gives the gain of any assets heldMight make more sense to look at Dustin Moskowitz's net worthBut that doesn't account for spending
"What annual real return will be realized by the Good Ventures investment portfolio 2022-2031?"
It ... (read more)
Ray Dalio is offering 10,000 free $100 charity girtcards to the first people who sign up.
Max $100k per charity