I guess my issue is that this all seems strictly worse than "pledge to give 10% for the first 1-2 years after graduation, and then decide whether to commit for life". Even "you commit for life, but with the option to withdraw 1-2 years after graduation", ie with the default to continue. Your arguments about not getting used to a full salary apply just as well to those imo

More broadly, I think it's bad to justify getting young people without much life experience to make a lifetime pledge, based on a controversial belief (that it should be normal to give 10%), by saying that you personally believe that belief is true. In this specific case I agree with your belief! I took the pledge (shortly after graduating I think). But there are all kinds of beliefs I disagree with that I do not want people using here. Lots of young people make choices that they regret later - I'm not saying they should be stopped from making these choices, but it's bad to encourage them. I agree with Buck, at least to the extent of saying that undergrads who've been in EA for less than a year should not be encouraged to sign a lifetime pledge.

(On a meta level, the pledge can obviously be broken if someone really regrets it, it's not legally binding. But I think arguments shouldn't rely on the pledge being breakable)

I personally think it's quite bad to try to get people to sign a lifetime giving pledge before they've ever had a real job, and think this is overemphasized in EA.

I think it's much better to eg make a pledge for the next 1-5 years, or the first year of your career, or something, and re-evaluate at the end of that, which I think mitigates some of your concerns

Member of Technical Staff is often a catchall term for "we don't want to pigeonhole you into a specific role, you do useful stuff in whatever way seems to add the most value", I wouldn't read much into it

Speaking as an IMO medalist who partially got into AI safety because of reading HPMOR 10 years ago, I think this plan is extremely reasonable

I disagree. I think it's an important principle of EA that it's socially acceptable to explore the implications of weird ideas, even if they feel uncomfortable, and to try to understand the perspective of those you disagree with. I want this forum to be a place where posts like this can exist.

The EA community still donates far more to global health causes than animal welfare - I think the meat eater problem discourse seems like a much bigger deal than it actually is in the community. I personally think it's all kinda silly and significantly prioritise saving human lives

I strong downvoted because the title is unnecessarily provocative and in my opinion gives a misleading impression. I would rather not have this kind of thing on my forum feed

Interesting idea!

1. I recommend a different name, when I saw this I assumed it was about pledging around left wing causes

2. I feel like the spirit of the pledge would be to increase the 10% part with inflation? If you get a pay raise in line with inflation it seems silly to have to give half of that, since your real take home pay is unchanged. Even the further pledge is inflation linked

Would value drift be mitigated by donating to a DAF and investing there? Or are you afraid your views on where to donate might also shift

I feel pretty ok with a very mild and bounded commitment? Especially with an awareness that forcing yourself to be miserable is rarely the way to be just effective yourself. I think it's pretty valid for someone's college age self to say that impact does matter to them, and they do care about this, and don't want to totally forget about it even if it becomes inconvenient, so long as they avoid ways this is psychological even by light of those values