Each year Julia and I need to decide where we're giving. Here's what we've been thinking about this year:

  • We want to continue dividing our donations 50-50 between things that directly do good and more speculative options. This is the approach we've been following since ~2012, and I think I first discussed this in my 2015 EA Global talk.

  • We're planning to continue donating 50%. In January, I had written that because I was switching from earning to give to direct work we'd be targeting 30%, but when I switched back we decided to switch our target back as well. [1] As in the past few years I worked with an accountant to estimate our adjusted gross income so we would know how much 50% translates to.

  • For things that directly do good we're planning to continue to follow GiveWell's recommendations. This year their preference is for people to donate to GiveWell for allocation at their discretion, but I wanted to participate in donation matching at work and for that we needed to pick a charity to fundraise for. For people who want to donate directly to charities GiveWell is recommending 70% to the Against Malaria Foundation and 30% to the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative. Because we had already donated $6k to the AMF in January [2], however, and because we weren't sure what our donation total would be at the time I signed up for matching, we ended up splitting 79% AMF and 21% SCI. [3]

    For the Against Malaria Foundation we donated through the PayPal Giving Fund. When you donate this way PayPal covers credit card transaction fees and also matches an additional 1%. This let us use a 2% cash-back credit card, saving $1k on $50k of donations, and gave the AMF an extra $0.5k. None of the other places we wanted to give to this year are covered, and the reasons pushing us toward the other opportunities were more important than the extra 3%, so everything else was by check.

  • For more speculative things, we want to put part of the money towards a project that a friend we know through the Effective Altruism movement is starting. In general I think this is a good way for people to get funding for early stage projects, presenting their case to people who know them and have a good sense of how to evaluate their plans. [4]

    This project isn't set up as a 501(c)3, so donations to it aren't tax deductible. We're currently talking to CEA to see if we can donate to this project through them, but they may decide it's not something they can do. Because Julia works there, we want to be careful not to unduly influence the decision, so we're trying to approach this clearly as community members rather than as staff. If it's not possible to do this through a grant by a nonprofit, we would fund the project directly but we're currently talking to CEA to see if we can donate through them. There's a good chance this will end up being an early 2018 donation instead of a 2017 one.

    For the remainder of the speculative portion we're planning to donate to the new EA Community Fund. Last year we donated to Nick Beckstead's EA Giving Group donor-advised fund, and the EA Community Fund is a more formal continuation of that.

I've also enjoyed reading the posts by GiveWell, Open Phil staff about where they're giving and why.


[1] This does mean borrowing some money. Modeling our cash flow I think we'll have it paid back in March or April. Much of my current compensation is in stock, and I won't start getting that until I'll have been back at Google for a year, which will be this September.

[2] Before I left Google, in January 2017, I wanted to max out their donation match for the year.

[3] That our division favored AMF a bit more than GiveWell's shouldn't be taken as disagreement, and if anything we (especially Julia) lean a bit more towards towards SCI.

[4] Another option for this sort of funding would be EA Grants if it used a rolling process.

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:
DC
2
0
0

For more speculative things, we want to put part of the money towards a project that a friend we know through the Effective Altruism movement is starting. In general I think this is a good way for people to get funding for early stage projects, presenting their case to people who know them and have a good sense of how to evaluate their plans.

What is the project (at the finest granularity of detail you are comfortable disclosing)?

We didn't end up giving to this, as the project's founder happily got a grant from elsewhere.

The project is a coaching service for EAs that we see as a complement to 80k's work - ongoing sessions aimed at developing professional skills and productivity, rather than a single session aimed at choosing a career path as 80k does. It's currently in beta/word-of-mouth stage, but I expect the founder will do a public writeup at some point.

This was a great write-up of your method. I wasn't aware of the Paypal Giving Fund, but I'm so glad you shared.

For more speculative things, we want to put part of the money towards a project that a friend we know through the Effective Altruism movement is starting. In general I think this is a good way for people to get funding for early stage projects, presenting their case to people who know them and have a good sense of how to evaluate their plans.

Agreed. Thanks for the work you do supporting things that'd otherwise not happen!

Shouldn't the title be about 2018?

These are our plans for the rest of 2017. While there aren't many days left, we also haven't made most of our annual donations yet.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
This is a crosspost for The Case for Insect Consciousness by Bob Fischer, which was originally published on Asterisk in January 2025. [Subtitle.] The evidence that insects feel pain is mounting, however we approach the issue. For years, I was on the fence about the possibility of insects feeling pain — sometimes, I defended the hypothesis;[1] more often, I argued against it.[2] Then, in 2021, I started working on the puzzle of how to compare pain intensity across species. If a human and a pig are suffering as much as each one can, are they suffering the same amount? Or is the human’s pain worse? When my colleagues and I looked at several species, investigating both the probability of pain and its relative intensity,[3] we found something unexpected: on both scores, insects aren’t that different from many other animals.  Around the same time, I started working with an entomologist with a background in neuroscience. She helped me appreciate the weaknesses of the arguments against insect pain. (For instance, people make a big deal of stories about praying mantises mating while being eaten; they ignore how often male mantises fight fiercely to avoid being devoured.) The more I studied the science of sentience, the less confident I became about any theory that would let us rule insect sentience out.  I’m a philosopher, and philosophers pride themselves on following arguments wherever they lead. But we all have our limits, and I worry, quite sincerely, that I’ve been too willing to give insects the benefit of the doubt. I’ve been troubled by what we do to farmed animals for my entire adult life, whereas it’s hard to feel much for flies. Still, I find the argument for insect pain persuasive enough to devote a lot of my time to insect welfare research. In brief, the apparent evidence for the capacity of insects to feel pain is uncomfortably strong.[4] We could dismiss it if we had a consensus-commanding theory of sentience that explained why the apparent evidence is ir
 ·  · 40m read
 · 
I am Jason Green-Lowe, the executive director of the Center for AI Policy (CAIP). Our mission is to directly convince Congress to pass strong AI safety legislation. As I explain in some detail in this post, I think our organization has been doing extremely important work, and that we’ve been doing well at it. Unfortunately, we have been unable to get funding from traditional donors to continue our operations. If we don’t get more funding in the next 30 days, we will have to shut down, which will damage our relationships with Congress and make it harder for future advocates to get traction on AI governance. In this post, I explain what we’ve been doing, why I think it’s valuable, and how your donations could help.  This is the first post in what I expect will be a 3-part series. The first post focuses on CAIP’s particular need for funding. The second post will lay out a more general case for why effective altruists and others who worry about AI safety should spend more money on advocacy and less money on research – even if you don’t think my organization in particular deserves any more funding, you might be convinced that it’s a priority to make sure other advocates get more funding. The third post will take a look at some institutional problems that might be part of why our movement has been systematically underfunding advocacy and offer suggestions about how to correct those problems. OUR MISSION AND STRATEGY The Center for AI Policy’s mission is to directly and openly urge the US Congress to pass strong AI safety legislation. By “strong AI safety legislation,” we mean laws that will significantly change AI developers’ incentives and make them less likely to develop or deploy extremely dangerous AI models. The particular dangers we are most worried about are (a) bioweapons, (b) intelligence explosions, and (c) gradual disempowerment. Most AI models do not significantly increase these risks, and so we advocate for narrowly-targeted laws that would focus their att
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
Citation: McKay, H. and Shah, S. (2025). Forecasting farmed animal numbers in 2033. Rethink Priorities. The report is also available on the Rethink Priorities website. Executive summary We produced rough-and-ready forecasts of the number of animals farmed in 2033 with the aim of helping advocates and funders with prioritization decisions. We focus on the most numerous groups of farmed animals: broiler chickens, finfishes, shrimps, and select insect species. Our forecasts suggest almost 6 trillion of these animals could be slaughtered in 2033 (Figure 1).   Figure 1: Invertebrates could account for 95% of farmed animals slaughtered in 2033 according to our midpoint estimates. Note that ‘Insects’ only includes black soldier fly larvae and mealworms. Our midpoint estimates point to a potential fourfold increase in the number of animals slaughtered from 2023 to 2033 and a doubling of the number of animals farmed at any time. Invertebrates drive the majority of this growth, and could account for 95% of farmed animals slaughtered in 2033 (see Figure 1) and three quarters of those alive at any time in our mid-point projections. We believe our forecasts point to an urgent need to address critical questions around the sentience and welfare of farmed invertebrates. Our estimates come with many caveats and warnings. In particular: * Species scope: For practicality, we produced numbers only for a few key animal groups: broiler chickens, finfishes, shrimp, and certain insects (black soldier flies and mealworms only). * Sensitivity to insect farming growth: Our forecasts are particularly sensitive to the growth in insect farming, which is highly sensitive to the success of insect farming business models and their ability to attract future investment. The recent and forecasted estimates, with 90% subjective credible intervals, can be viewed below in Table 1.  Table 1: Estimates of recent and forecasted numbers of broiler chickens, finfishes, shrimps, and insects slau