Data scientist working on AI governance at MIRI, previously forecasting at Epoch and the Stanford AI Index. GWWC pledge member since 2017. Formerly social chair at Harvard Effective Altruism, facilitator for Arete Fellowship, and founder of the DC Slate Star Codex meetup.
Your point number 3 is counterproductive and reduces the effectiveness of your donations. It's understandable to do that if the alternative is that you wouldn't give the money away at all, but if charitable opportunities are really power-law distributed in effectiveness (which I think is directionally correct) then you're reducing the good done by your donations by >55%.
FRI has informed decisions on frontier AI companies' capability scaling policies
Their scaling policies are not very good (or are ignored in favor of profits and increased scaling) so I don't see how this is a win for forecasting. Unless you're saying they would be even worse without FRI, which I don't think is true (they'd probably behave the same regardless).
What would you say in response to a conservative abortion clinic protestor who makes the same argument you're making? "It was ethically necessary for me to kidnap the doctor who was about to start their shift at Planned Parenthood. Yes, it's normally illegal to kidnap people, but those babies* were in imminent danger of being killed by the doctor, and it's permissible to break laws to avoid a forseeable imminent harm." (*The conservative protestor believes that fetuses have equal moral status to babies, the same way you and I believe that pigs have equal moral status to dogs.)
Huh? Weren't you quiting a job to start an org to fix the vibes?