What's your long-term plan to ensure your invested money goes to good causes? Might you give to a Founders Pledge long-term investment fund?

I think if I was investing to give with my GWWC 10%, I'd probably do so via a donor-advised fund, as that feels a bit more in-keeping with the pledge to me (as well as a bit more safe from value-drift)

That's a very fair point about value drift. I still need to look into DAFs  a bit more. The only reservation I currently have is that, to my knowledge, you can only give to charities from a DAF, and there are a lot of great giving opportunities that aren't charities (GPI being one example). 

As for being in-keeping with the GWWC pledge - I never interpreted the pledge as meaning you're supposed to give at least 10% on a constant basis, but instead at least 10% over the course of your life. But I do accept the former strategy counters against value drift. I'm hoping to get back into frequent giving at some point in the near future!

EDIT: I'm wrong. The pledge FAQs says "The spirit of the Pledge is to donate on an ongoing basis, rather than letting “donation debt” build up over many years." I can understand why they say this from a value drift perspective but as MichaelA says they don't seem to address how best to "invest to give".

What does he think about the idea that we can't really justify giving to global health charities because we are clueless about the long-term impacts of doing so. For example, we should expect such giving to have impacts on population size now and in the future but it is highly unclear if the net effect of this is positive or negative in moral terms, and it doesn't seem OK to just ignore this and assume it equals zero in expected value.

Or just generally his thoughts on the problem of cluelessness and how we should respond to it.

For what it's worth I thought it was a nice touch and agree it's likely to incentivise some and unlikely to put off any (/many)

By the way sorry about not being that helpful and essentially sidestepping your actual question in my first response.

I think if you want to get an accurate view on what research people use that’s probably not going to be possible by asking a question on the EA Forum. I’m just not that sure how many people answer questions here and so you’ll inevitably get a skewed picture from those that do answer. Having a question like this in a wider survey would be helpful. I can’t quite remember if this was asked in the 2020 EA survey - I think something fairly similar was. It’s a good one to have going forward.

That's fair enough. I agree the route to impact is longer and more opaque. As such I think that it is hard to "evidence" the impact of GPI and I certainly won't be able to adequately do that here. I suppose one way that this could be done would be to survey EA organisations that actually "get things done" to see if they make use of GPI's research.

Having said that I think it is possible to make a more abstract case that GPI may have tremendous impact by looking at the impact that academia has already had in the EA community. For example, as far as I'm aware, the heavy focus on longtermism in the EA community stems originally from academic papers such as this one or this one. Given that global priorities research is still so new it seems plausible that further research could still radically change the direction of the EA community for the better. That's why I personally would probably give to GPI over CE at this stage.

Thanks that all makes sense and I agree that a one size fits all approach is unlikely to be appropriate.