I am quite confident you would get more and better (i.e. more well-calibrated) recommendations and referrals if you shared more about your background (or CV/LinkedIn) and what roles you'd be interested in. 

Feel free to DM me with the above if you don't want to share it publicly, but how will I be able to put you on other people's map if I do not even know your name? 

EA-aligned organisations active in EU policy

Very surprised not to see the usual suspects (TFS, Pour Demain, Center for Future Generations...)

Papers can seem more prestigious and don't get annoying negative comments.

Reviewer #2 would like a word 

Is it? Wouldn't you expect the auto industry to have incentives to exaggerate their possible future accomplishments in developing faster cars because it has a direct influence on how much governments will prioritise it as a means of transport, subsidise R&D, etc.? 

I'm seeing lots of O's and no KR's. Is this intentional?

(My understanding is that one of the main benefits of having KPIs or OKRs is the accountability that comes from having specific and measurable (i.e. quantifiable) outcomes that you can track and evaluate, and I can't see any of those in the document.)

Giving What We Can tells me that I have donated $27,846 this year, which together with my donations from last year brings me to a total of ~78k donated, comfortably ahead of my pledge of 10% (which would amount to ~12k). I donated less than last year due to a move and a few personal reasons but aspire to bring my donations up again to something closer to 50% of my income. 

Here's where my donations went^[1]:
 

Shoutout to the team at @Giving What We Can for providing these neat graphics, I've found this a) super motivating and b) very time-saving compared to how I tracked my donations last year! 

1. ^{^}

   I work on AI Governance (and support a number of field- and community building projects) so most of my donations go to GHD. I have since added a recurring donation to the Humane League and am considering adding more animal welfare charities to my donation portfolio. "Others" is mostly AW charities atm. 

Yep, numbers ranged from 60% to 80% support for approving SB 1047, and it was impressively bipartisan, too.

(Just to correct the record for people who might have been surprised to see this comment: All of these people work for OpenPhilanthropy, not for OpenAI.)

Is there a reason it's impossible to find out who is involved with this project? Maybe it's on purpose, but through the website I couldn't find out who's on the team, who supports it, or what kind of organisation (nonprofit? For profit? Etc.) you are legally. If this was a deliberate and strategic choice against being transparent because of the nature of the work you expect to be doing, I'd love to hear why you made it!

[My 2 cents: As an org that is focused on advocacy and campaigns, it might be especially important to be transparent to build trust. It's projects like yours where I find myself MOST interested who is behind it to evaluate trustworthiness, conflicting incentives, etc. For all I know (from the website), you could be a competitor of the company you are targeting! I am not saying you need Fish-Welfare-Project-level transparency with open budgets etc.,and maybe I am just an overly suspicious website visitor, but I felt it was worth flagging]

This is a great idea. It's such a good idea that someone else (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/aaronb50) has had it before and has already solved this problem for us:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/eag-talks/id1689845820