Karnofsky, on the Dwarkesh podcast said (emphasis mine):

I mean, you can look up our $30 million grant to OpenAI. I think it was back in 2016–– we wrote about some of the thinking behind it. Part of that grant was getting a board seat for Open Philanthropy for a few years so that we could help with their governance at a crucial early time in their development. I think some people believe that OpenAI has been net negative for the world because of the fact that they have contributed a lot to AI advancing and to AI being sort of hyped, and they think that gives us less time to prepare for it. However, I do think that all else being equal, AI advancing faster gives us less time to prepare. It is a bad thing, but I don't think it's the only consideration. I think OpenAI has done a number of good things too, and has set some important precedents. I think it's probably much more interested in a lot of the issues I'm talking about and risks from advanced AI than like the company that I would guess would exist if they didn't, would be doing similar things.

I don't really accept that the idea that OpenAI is a negative force. I think it's highly debatable. We could talk about it all day. If you look at our specific grant, it's even a completely different thing because a lot of that was not just about boosting them, but about getting to be part of their early decision making. I think that was something that there were benefits and was important. My overall view is that I don't look back on that grant as one of the better grants we've made, not one of the worse ones. But certainly we've done a lot of things that have had, you know, that have not worked out. I think there are some times shortly when we've done things that have consequences we didn't intend. No philanthropist can be free of that. What we can try and do is be responsible, seriously do our homework to try to understand things beforehand, see the risks that we're able to see, and think about how to minimize them. 

I expect there is some variability, the author in this piece focuses on alcohol, which I don't know that much about, but for "Reduce unhealthy diet" (Objective 3, page 10), CEARCH did a report here, which relates to WHO's best buys (if not quite exactly matching their specified intervention), and found it to be "49,419 DALYs per USD 100,000"

For best buys in education, I recommend Rachel Glennester's 80,000 hours podcast episode, where she praises the best buys, but also criticises how education spending is done

She has a second episode, which also touches on best buys

P.S. I'm not sure why this post has two disagree votes - seems like a perfectly valid forum post to me

Not sure if you caught it but there was a detailed critique and discussion of this 90% figure on LessWrong

There's a transcript of the Ivan Gayton podcast, and other discussion, here

In March 2025, Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, predicted that 90% of code would be written by AI as early as June 2025 and no later than September 2025. This turned out to be dead wrong. 

Amodei claims that 90% of code at Anthropic (and some companies they work with) is being written by AI

There are some interesting comments on LessWrong

I have been recommended the Drone Ultimatum podcast, but haven't listened to any

Discussed on the forum here

I am a huge Ted Chiang fan, but your review misses one of the most amazing things about his writing -- it is written in very brief and straightforward words and sentences!

A number of his short stories are available for free online, for instance Exhalation in Lightspeed magazine. Under 'Works' on his Wikipedia page, you can find others (sometimes via web archives)

A large recent RCT found that free contraception had no impact on birth rates in Burkina Faso - I wonder if/how this affects this cause area