Devon Fritz

997 karmaJoined 10967 Berlin, Germany


EA Meta for 7 years!

COO of Ambitious Impact (previously Charity Entrepreneurship).

Co-Founder of High Impact Professionals. We enable working professionals to maximize their positive impact by supporting them in donating their time, skills and resources effectively.

Ex-CTO and MD of Germany for Founders Pledge. Big on promoting Effective Giving.

Originally from New York, living in Berlin.


My hot take is that vegan alternatives generally just don't get to scale where the marginal unit cost is low.

Thanks for the great work as usual. This is a very good snapshot of where people are at.

I would love to see an analysis that normalizes for meta funds flowing into causes areas. In @Joel Tan's recent Meta Funding Landscape post, he states that OP grants 72% of total meta funds and that the lion's share goes to longtermism. 


From his post:


And although the EA Infrastructure fund supports multiple cause areas, if you scroll through the recent grants you might be surprised at the percentage going to LT.

Funders should, of course, prioritize the cause areas they want, but I hope to make it clear to people that when a vast majority of funding goes to prop up one area, it should be no surprise that that area has lots of adherents that advocate it.

Normalizing some of this data for meta-funding received would show that, among other things, GH&D is on top DESPITE a significant LT funding advantage.

Hey Hauke, really interesting and important - thanks!


A quick note:

The next $1k/cap increase in a country at $10k/cap is worth only 1/10th as much as in a country with $100k/cap, because, the utility gained from increasing consumption from $1k to $10k is much greater than the utility gained from increasing consumption from $11k to $20k, even though the absolute dollar amounts are the same.

The claim in the part I bolded should be reversed, no? E.g. Increasing $1K where GDP/cap is $100K is worth 1/10th as much...etc.

I think one of the major problems I see in EA as a whole is a fairly loose definition of 'impact'.

I find the statement is more precise if you put "longtermism" where "EA" is. Is that your sense as well?

I continue to be impressed by the Effektiv Spenden team. Well done everyone!

To me, based on what you said, you have provided a lot of value to many people at relatively low cost to yourself. I have the impression that the time was quite counterfactual given you didn't seem to have many burning projects at the time. So, seems pretty good to me on the face of it although for every given detail you know way more than I do!

I continue to be impressed by the breadth and depth of stuff you and the rest of the CE team pump out, seemingly on a monthly basis!

Really excited by this and all of the work the CE team has been pumping out!


Quick question regarding programming: You say the first month is about learning and the second about applying, but that the course is 11 weeks. What is the extra time dedicated to?

Strong agree with this. Most EAs would probably agree with these points abstractly, but there is likely a gap in that (I believe) most EAs have not e.g. taken the GGWC pledge.

Load more