:) sounds right to me. A couple factors here that might clear things up.
1) I probably want to donate to both GH and AW charities across my life, so I don't think the results of this donation election counterfactually affected my lifetime donations much.
2) I'm a student and this donation was relatively small compared to future ones I expect to make.
One of the benefits of patient philanthropy is that it allows you to select the people to receive your money in, say, 50 years.
Assume the poorest people in the world are in Ghana. There is no guarantee that the poorest people in the world will be in Ghana in 50 years. If we want to help people in Ghana in 50 years, your two arguments strike me as quite plausible. However, if we want to help the global poor in 50 years, donating to Ghanans seems much less likely to maximize this.
This seems quite correct! There quite a few open questions in my mind.
1) What is the chance Anthropic EA's either aren't interested in donating or will spread their donations out across significant time? If they are EA, it seems unlikely that they will struggle to understand the "donation timing" case.
2) What percent of the IPO do we expect to be donated? To which cause areas?
3) What is our estimate for how logarithmic the utility functions of common EA charities are?
4) Isn't AI just predicting the next word? Why would Anthropic be able to make any money from this?
Seems like a case where marginal thinking strictly dominates the abolitionist case. I'd imagine many more people could get on board with doing more to stop child smoking addiction and reducing the consumption of the most harmful tobacco products.
I'd expect the less controversial interventions to be more tractable and therefore impactful as well. Why not aim at that?
I love how principles first this bulldog guy is!
Where can I donate to the Naviation Fund? I've never heard of this and can't find them on the internet.
Marcus' points are good
The most impactful charities right now work on existential risks or the long term future (>100 years out).
:) sounds right to me. A couple factors here that might clear things up.
1) I probably want to donate to both GH and AW charities across my life, so I don't think the results of this donation election counterfactually affected my lifetime donations much.
2) I'm a student and this donation was relatively small compared to future ones I expect to make.
I donated to AMF because it beat the Humane League in our club donation election :(
One of the benefits of patient philanthropy is that it allows you to select the people to receive your money in, say, 50 years.
Assume the poorest people in the world are in Ghana. There is no guarantee that the poorest people in the world will be in Ghana in 50 years. If we want to help people in Ghana in 50 years, your two arguments strike me as quite plausible. However, if we want to help the global poor in 50 years, donating to Ghanans seems much less likely to maximize this.
This seems quite correct! There quite a few open questions in my mind.
1) What is the chance Anthropic EA's either aren't interested in donating or will spread their donations out across significant time? If they are EA, it seems unlikely that they will struggle to understand the "donation timing" case.
2) What percent of the IPO do we expect to be donated? To which cause areas?
3) What is our estimate for how logarithmic the utility functions of common EA charities are?
4) Isn't AI just predicting the next word? Why would Anthropic be able to make any money from this?
Great post!
Seems like a case where marginal thinking strictly dominates the abolitionist case. I'd imagine many more people could get on board with doing more to stop child smoking addiction and reducing the consumption of the most harmful tobacco products.
I'd expect the less controversial interventions to be more tractable and therefore impactful as well. Why not aim at that?