Thank you for doing this work, I really appreciate how transparent and easy to interact with this is (especially for someone like me who doesn’t have a technical or econometric background).
If you or anyone else reading this is up for it, I would love to see followup writing and analysis on the most impactful gifts from Yield Giving across each of its focus areas. It would be wonderful to incorporate a plurality of values in addition to QALYs (e.g, LAYS for education, income gains for financial security, WELLBYs for mental health, a combination of innovation, redistribution, carbon, and earnings gains for individuals & cities for housing, etc).
I think that independent analysis can be an incredibly valuable resource for a philanthropist, particularly one giving with the scale and trust of Mackenzie Scott (I loved GiveWell's change our mind contest!) By highlighting “best buys” from Yield Giving’s portfolio and providing examples of other impactful organizations that might fit their strategy, this type of impartial and rigorous work can celebrate effective giving and provide a public good to the broader philanthropic ecosystem.
Agree with the spirit of this, but I'd flag that I think it's very important to be mindful of reputational/downside risks for the EA movement. In my view, with more money (realized and prospective), the value of community integrity becomes even higher.
An example of post-IPO retail philanthropy I'm excited about is giving a friend $5k to take time off and apply to high-impact jobs. As Aaron writes, individuals know about opportunities that large funders don't!
An example of post-IPO retail philanthropy I worry about is paying for an antagonistic media campaign against [X factory farm owner or public figure], which institutional funders could have chosen to fund but decided against due to reputational risk. If the funding is traced back to you, the movement's reputation could be damaged by association. Even if it isn't, new large funders may be dissuaded from getting involved if they see antagonistic or risky actions being funded in areas related to EA.
Great point, thanks Ariel. I wouldn't say earning to give is necessarily suboptimal (for any cause), just that directionally more money will flow across and within major EA focus areas.
My best guess is that there will be an increase in funding to animal welfare, though likely not to the extent of the funding increase to AI safety. I'm less confident in the funding landscape for digital minds, but I would guess that this field will get a boost as well (e.g, because Longview may receive more donations).
Hi Adrian, thanks for asking! My understanding is that Europeans (who are not US citizens) cannot make 501c4 donations.
There are 501c3 giving opportunities – for example, earmarking gifts to the Uproot Center within Earth Share – however I've heard that these c3 are less cost-effective than c4 opportunities (like the AMPA linked in this post) at causing the desired legislative change.
I'm not sure about the extent to which c3 opportunities differ from c4 opportunities in cost-effectiveness. However, I've heard that c4 donations are recommended for US citizens even though they are not tax-deductible, which suggests the difference in cost-effectiveness could be at least 30%.
I'll also note that the EA Animal Welfare Fund (a 501c3) still represents a very strong donation option to help animals in my view. I'm not confident in which of the Uproot Center or EA AWF is more cost-effective at the current moment, but I am confident that the EA Animal Welfare Fund is incredibly cost-effective.
This is awesome! There are a number of factors that make sharing AI safety career opportunities feel particularly valuable to me right now:
AI safety roles are more abundant and lucrative now than ever before.
Salience of AI risks are higher now than ever before.
Concreteness of what people can be doing to help feels higher now than ever before (see the latest Holden Karnofsky 80k episode)
I think Jen’s approach is very impactful (and creative/cool!) For anyone reading this post: I think that reaching out directly to CS/ML people in your life (e.g, SWEs who have been laid off or are fearing layoffs) to make this case and share career infrastructure resources (80k, Bluedot, High Impact Professionals, ARENA, AI Safety Map etc) represents an enormously high-leverage opportunity for impact
This comment on a 2022 EA Forum post referenced that Anthropic's job board listed "Optional equity donation matching at a 3:1 ratio, up to 50% of your equity grant" at the time.
This "Longterm Wiki" article suggests that the pledge rate was 3:1 for up to half an employee's equity from 2021-2024, and reduced to 1:1 for up to 25% of an employee's equity starting in 2025.
My understanding is that Anthropic has maintained this match rate for employees who joined and pledged equity at the time a 3:1 match was offered. I.e, a staff member who joined in 2022 and pledged 50% of their equity at a 3:1 match did not have their employer match reduced when Anthropic changed the match rate for staff who joined after the terms changed.
+1 that a great co-living space can be a huge quality of life improvement! My day-to-day sense of happiness and belonging in SF increased enormously once I moved into a place with friends.
One other meaningful benefit of coordinating a housing group (at least in California) is that you can freeze your starting rent rate. E.g., a four-bedroom unit in the building I lived in was listing at $6,500/month in 2022 when friends and I moved in. A group moved in, then vacated last year. The landlord then successfully re-listed the same unit at $9k/month (a 38% increase). Meanwhile the rent in our unit has only increased by ~2% over the last four years because CA rent protections only allow a landlord to increase rent by a modest, state-set annual cost-of-living/inflation rate.
Had that 4-bedroom been able to Theseus’ ship the move-out transition -- changing the names on the lease to other friends/EAs gradually without fully vacating -- they would be able to save $28,440 ($7,110 per resident) per year in perpetuity.
Huge props to the organizers of this retreat! Awesome to see this turnout, and the 1:1 scheduling app they created has the potential to add value across a number of future events.
I asked the authors why they were concerned about the failure mode of with participants commuting to and from the venue each day. They helpfully sent the following:
I think a lot of the value of these retreats comes from people spending a lot of time together and becoming friends. I’d worry that if participants commuted, they might not engage fully in the retreat (in particular, not hanging out at night, which is great for friendships, bonding, and a sense of belonging in the community).
I wanted to share this here (with the authors’ permission) in case others had the same question.
Echoing praise for JD Bauman: he gave a talk for our university EA club and is an exceptional speaker. Compelling, warm, energizing, and great at fielding all sorts of questions. If any EA groups are looking for guest presenters (including for joint events with faith groups), I cannot recommend JD highly enough!
This is one of my favorite talks ever. Clear, gripping, heartbreaking, and uplifting all in ten minutes; not a word wasted.
Thank you to everyone at Pure Earth for the work you do on this incredibly important issue, I'm excited to send this talk to friends and family.
Thank you for doing this work, I really appreciate how transparent and easy to interact with this is (especially for someone like me who doesn’t have a technical or econometric background).
If you or anyone else reading this is up for it, I would love to see followup writing and analysis on the most impactful gifts from Yield Giving across each of its focus areas. It would be wonderful to incorporate a plurality of values in addition to QALYs (e.g, LAYS for education, income gains for financial security, WELLBYs for mental health, a combination of innovation, redistribution, carbon, and earnings gains for individuals & cities for housing, etc).
I think that independent analysis can be an incredibly valuable resource for a philanthropist, particularly one giving with the scale and trust of Mackenzie Scott (I loved GiveWell's change our mind contest!) By highlighting “best buys” from Yield Giving’s portfolio and providing examples of other impactful organizations that might fit their strategy, this type of impartial and rigorous work can celebrate effective giving and provide a public good to the broader philanthropic ecosystem.
Agree with the spirit of this, but I'd flag that I think it's very important to be mindful of reputational/downside risks for the EA movement. In my view, with more money (realized and prospective), the value of community integrity becomes even higher.
An example of post-IPO retail philanthropy I'm excited about is giving a friend $5k to take time off and apply to high-impact jobs. As Aaron writes, individuals know about opportunities that large funders don't!
An example of post-IPO retail philanthropy I worry about is paying for an antagonistic media campaign against [X factory farm owner or public figure], which institutional funders could have chosen to fund but decided against due to reputational risk. If the funding is traced back to you, the movement's reputation could be damaged by association. Even if it isn't, new large funders may be dissuaded from getting involved if they see antagonistic or risky actions being funded in areas related to EA.
Great point, thanks Ariel. I wouldn't say earning to give is necessarily suboptimal (for any cause), just that directionally more money will flow across and within major EA focus areas.
My best guess is that there will be an increase in funding to animal welfare, though likely not to the extent of the funding increase to AI safety. I'm less confident in the funding landscape for digital minds, but I would guess that this field will get a boost as well (e.g, because Longview may receive more donations).
*Responding in a personal capacity*
Hi Adrian, thanks for asking! My understanding is that Europeans (who are not US citizens) cannot make 501c4 donations.
There are 501c3 giving opportunities – for example, earmarking gifts to the Uproot Center within Earth Share – however I've heard that these c3 are less cost-effective than c4 opportunities (like the AMPA linked in this post) at causing the desired legislative change.
I'm not sure about the extent to which c3 opportunities differ from c4 opportunities in cost-effectiveness. However, I've heard that c4 donations are recommended for US citizens even though they are not tax-deductible, which suggests the difference in cost-effectiveness could be at least 30%.
I'll also note that the EA Animal Welfare Fund (a 501c3) still represents a very strong donation option to help animals in my view. I'm not confident in which of the Uproot Center or EA AWF is more cost-effective at the current moment, but I am confident that the EA Animal Welfare Fund is incredibly cost-effective.
This is awesome! There are a number of factors that make sharing AI safety career opportunities feel particularly valuable to me right now:
I think Jen’s approach is very impactful (and creative/cool!) For anyone reading this post: I think that reaching out directly to CS/ML people in your life (e.g, SWEs who have been laid off or are fearing layoffs) to make this case and share career infrastructure resources (80k, Bluedot, High Impact Professionals, ARENA, AI Safety Map etc) represents an enormously high-leverage opportunity for impact
Sure thing, Sawyer:
This comment on a 2022 EA Forum post referenced that Anthropic's job board listed "Optional equity donation matching at a 3:1 ratio, up to 50% of your equity grant" at the time.
This "Longterm Wiki" article suggests that the pledge rate was 3:1 for up to half an employee's equity from 2021-2024, and reduced to 1:1 for up to 25% of an employee's equity starting in 2025.
My understanding is that Anthropic has maintained this match rate for employees who joined and pledged equity at the time a 3:1 match was offered. I.e, a staff member who joined in 2022 and pledged 50% of their equity at a 3:1 match did not have their employer match reduced when Anthropic changed the match rate for staff who joined after the terms changed.
+1 that a great co-living space can be a huge quality of life improvement! My day-to-day sense of happiness and belonging in SF increased enormously once I moved into a place with friends.
One other meaningful benefit of coordinating a housing group (at least in California) is that you can freeze your starting rent rate. E.g., a four-bedroom unit in the building I lived in was listing at $6,500/month in 2022 when friends and I moved in. A group moved in, then vacated last year. The landlord then successfully re-listed the same unit at $9k/month (a 38% increase). Meanwhile the rent in our unit has only increased by ~2% over the last four years because CA rent protections only allow a landlord to increase rent by a modest, state-set annual cost-of-living/inflation rate.
Had that 4-bedroom been able to Theseus’ ship the move-out transition -- changing the names on the lease to other friends/EAs gradually without fully vacating -- they would be able to save $28,440 ($7,110 per resident) per year in perpetuity.
Huge props to the organizers of this retreat! Awesome to see this turnout, and the 1:1 scheduling app they created has the potential to add value across a number of future events.
I asked the authors why they were concerned about the failure mode of with participants commuting to and from the venue each day. They helpfully sent the following:
I think a lot of the value of these retreats comes from people spending a lot of time together and becoming friends. I’d worry that if participants commuted, they might not engage fully in the retreat (in particular, not hanging out at night, which is great for friendships, bonding, and a sense of belonging in the community).
I wanted to share this here (with the authors’ permission) in case others had the same question.
Echoing praise for JD Bauman: he gave a talk for our university EA club and is an exceptional speaker. Compelling, warm, energizing, and great at fielding all sorts of questions. If any EA groups are looking for guest presenters (including for joint events with faith groups), I cannot recommend JD highly enough!