Also the $70 billion on development assistance for health doesn't include other funding that contributes to development.

• $100b+ on non health development
• $500b+ remittances
• Harder to estimate but over a trillion spent by LMICs on their own development and welfare

The Panorama episode briefly mentioned EA. Peter Singer spoke for a couple of minutes and EA was mainly viewed as charity that would be missing out on money. There seemed to be a lot more interest on the internal discussions within FTX, crypto drama, the politicians, celebrities etc. 

Maybe Panorama is an outlier but potentially EA is not that interesting to most people or seemingly too complicated to explain if you only have an hour.

I've written a bit about this here and think that they would both be better off if they were more distinct.

As AI safety has grown over the last few years there may have been missed growth opportunities from not having a larger separated identity.

I spoke to someone at EAG London 2023 who didn't realise that AI safety would get discussed at EAG until someone suggested they should go after doing an AI safety fellowship. There are probably many examples of people with an interest in emerging tech risks who would have got more involved at an earlier time if they'd been presented with those options at the beginning.

In 2015, one survey found 44% of the American public would consider AI an existential threat. In February 2023 it was 55%.

I've written about this idea before FTX and think that FTX is a minor influence compared to the increased interest in AI risk.

My original reasoning was that AI safety is a separate field but doesn't really have much movement building work being put into it outside of EA/longtermism/x-risk framed activities. 

Another reason why AI takes up a lot of EA space, is that there aren't many other places to go to discuss these topics, which is bad for the growth of AI safety if it's hidden behind donating 10% and going vegan and bad for EA if it gets overcrowded by something that should have it's own institutions/events/etc.

If the definition of being more engaged includes going to EAG and being a member of a group, aren't some of these results a bit circular?

EA isn't a political party but I still think it's an issue if the aims of the keenest members diverges from the original aims of the movement, especially if the barrier to entry to be a member is quite low compared to being in an EA governance position. I would worry that the people who would bother to vote would have much less understanding of what the strategic situation is than the people who are working full time.

Maybe we have had different experiences, I would say that the people who turn up to more events are usually more interested in the social side of EA. Also there are lot of people in the UK who want to have impact and have a high interest in EA but don't come to events and wouldn't want to pay to be a member (or even sign up as a member if it was free).

I think people can still hold organisations to account and follow the money, even if they aren't members, and this already happens in EA, with lots of  critiques of different organisations and individuals.

I think one large disadvantage of a membership association is that it will usually consist of the most interested people, or the people most interested in the social aspect of EA. This may not always correlate with the people who could have the most impact, and creates a definitive in and out.

I'd be worried about members voting for activities that benefit them the most rather than the ultimate beneficiaries (global poor, animals, future beings).

Olivia Fox Cabane has an alt protein industry landscape map.

A separate organisation just for CBGs would have been useful too rather than a lot of one and two person teams with constant turnover.