Several of these organizations were already working with OpenAI partners (Microsoft is the founding partner and anchor tenant of the SOVA Innovation Hub in a town of ~8,000 people) and the call for proposals required applicant organizations to be based in the US. 

I don't know how much of the overlap was deliberate vs. a reflection of who was invited to their nonprofit events and able to respond to the call for proposals on short notice. For some relevant orgs (like those working on AI & health), it may be worth keeping an eye on future funding opportunities and applying. 

IIRC, the 35% figure comes from the value of the deduction for people in the 37% bracket. Basically, you will only see 35% back from the deduction instead of the full 37% (saving $0.35 in taxes vs $0.37 for every dollar donated in that bracket).

I am not aware of any changes to the limit in total qualified donations, but you should still be able to take advantage of carryover rules if you exceed the limit. 

I am not an accountant and this is not financial advice - I just don't want people to be discouraged from giving in the coming years and worked pretty closely on the OBBB. 

I think Point #5 is really important, especially as the professional default shifts back to in-person work. The additional cost of living in an EA hub is probably worth it for people who lean towards doing direct work in a specific field or rely on some level of social pressure to remain focused.

While based in Texas, most of my visits to EA hubs were tied to business travel. I could have a great life in a three-bedroom house (right on the water!) for about as much as I spent living in a 300-square-foot basement without air conditioning in an EA hub. The state tax savings covered my living expenses and let me donate more than I would have otherwise. From an ETG perspective, it made sense. 

I had the best of both worlds for a little bit, but I felt quite disconnected when that travel took me elsewhere. Conversations about niche advocacy projects were replaced with talk of private school tuition and the best skiing destinations. I missed major things that I could have helped with (specifically in the global health space) because I was engaging less with the ideas and people that had motivated me to join the industry I was in.

I don’t think everyone should reorient their lives to live in an EA hub, but it can be incredibly useful for both personal and professional reasons. I am not a city person and will probably move eventually, but I can personally say that coming back has been worth the cost at this point in my life.

Several people working on climate issues out of World Bank HQ are involved in the local EA community. It may be worth a conversation with them around feasibility and bureaucratic pathways / challenges to shifting strategy on major funding areas. Your second footnote focused on climate impacts, so I assume you're not opposed to arguments from that perspective. 

Distribution would likely be coordinated with the Defense Logistics Agency, which manages global supply chain and distribution for DOD and other federal agencies. They have an extensive national distribution network and are often responsible for ensuring emergency supplies reach domestic natural disaster sites. 

Recent biodefense plans included high levels of DOD action. I don't know where the current admin stands on the existing plans, but I would feel much more comfortable if Defense played a significant role. 

I saw this and I agree with your main points. I will be offline for a bit due to travel, but I am happy to have a longer conversation with more nuanced responses.

Policy teams at private companies are more well-resourced while, as you mentioned, working on issues ranging from antitrust to privacy and child protection. I may be wrong, but I think the teams focused specifically on frontier AI (excluding infrastructure work) seem to be more balanced than the provided numbers suggest. This observation may be outdated, especially since SB-1047. You likely have a better idea of the current landscape than I do, and I’ll defer to your assessment.

Regarding “conflict framing” - I should have phrased this differently. I did not mean the policy conflicts which come up when a new or potentially consequential industry is facing government intervention. I meant a situation when groups and individuals become entrenched in direct conflict on almost all issues, regardless of the consequence. A recent non-AI example would be the philanthropically funded anti-fossil fuel advocates fighting carbon capture projects despite the IRA funding and general support from climate change-focused groups. The conflict has moved beyond specific policy proposals or even climate goals and has become a purity test that seems impossible to overcome through negotiation. This is a situation that I would not want to see, and I am glad it is not the case here.

In 2024, several lobbyists from the same firm represented both OpenAI and the Center for AI Safety Action Fund at the same time. I am not suggesting any conflict of interest on their part. However, I don't think the "299 corporate lobbyists vs. scrappy AI safety groups" is an effective framing, given that at least some of the money is flowing to the similar places. 

I wouldn't compare external lobbyists to full time advocacy staff because (1) external lobbyists and lawyers typically cover many clients and are unlikely to be particularly committed to a single issue like AI safety, and (2) firms often register anyone who does outreach on the project, regardless of whether they meet federal lobbying disclosure thresholds. It's also pretty congenial in general; Amazon lobbyists have helped me with EA-related side projects without payment because they were being nice.  

This isn't to say that advocacy couldn't absorb more funding. But the conflict framing doesn't seem to represent the facts on the ground, at if organizations want funding to hire mainstream government relations people who rarely see it that way. Upskilling people already committed to AI safety would be different.

You run an AI safety org full time and have a better idea of the field. I'm just throwing in my two cents re: representation disparities. 

There are a lot of interesting global development and technology-related angles that could justify energy-related work. Reliable, affordable energy can spur economic growth and increase the quality of life for people in developing economies. I’m linking a very surface-level McKinsey report on the historic link between energy demand and GDP for basic context, but I’m happy to have a longer chat. 

Existing cause areas like South Asian Air Quality could benefit from low-hanging fruit in scalable alternatives to the country's current reliance on coal. For example, India is already a major importer of LPG (which it subsidizes for home kitchen use) and, more recently, LNG. IEA expects India’s gas imports to more than double by 2030 to support its predicted economic growth. This is in addition to the existing ~46% of domestically produced energy coming from renewable sources.

Diverting philanthropic resources to US energy policy doesn’t make much sense to me on the surface, but I’m open to being proven wrong if you have more information behind the argument.

Edit: My non-tech energy work is a ~neutral earning-to-give situation. The work is interesting, reliable, and I enjoy it. I wouldn't argue that it is has a similar impact to direct work.

Sharing some context about where we are, since coverage has really blown up since the provision was added. I am not working on this specific issue, so I can comment here:

• At the time of posting, this provision had just made it through House E&C, and has not made it through the House Budget Committee markup, which is responsible for putting together the consolidated bill. Their markup is scheduled for tomorrow, May 16; any person or organization can email a statement for the record before COB May 19.
• In E&C markup, House Republicans acknowledged the Byrd Rule concern and argued that it was a necessary measure to safeguard the attached investment into modernizing federal IT infrastructure. I am not sure if that is enough, but they are aware and plan to get around it.
• If it makes it through and gets flagged by the Parliamentarian, Sen. Thune (Majority Leader) has been publicly clear about two relevant points: (1) he is against overruling the parliamentarian, and (2) his team has been in consistent conversations with her regarding relevant parts of this bill.

For people who are going to reach out, I would focus on substantive concerns about the provisions, which may be effective even with states' rights-focused conservatives. Getting daily calls about parliamentary procedure may or may not change any minds. I promise even the proponents are aware of those hurdles.