Hide table of contents

Hi I'm new here so please feel free to let me know if I'm breaking any norms but I'll cut to the chase:

Last year I began freelancing and generated about $50K. Do you think it be weird/ pompous to let them my main clients know I donated 10% of that to Give well's top charities?

I was thinking of slipping a note about that into a holiday gift package. I would love to introduce them to EA charities and maybe get them interested in some but don't want to be strange and hurt my business.

28

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


2 Answers sorted by

Probably depends on how you describe it and frame it. How do you explain why you are telling them this? If you’re willing, you might do a trial on this. Do something like divide your clients into two random groups and send this message to half. See if you observe any difference (try to keep track of the numbers as well as the more qualitative outcomes like how they respond to the card)

"How do you explain why you are telling them this?"

I'd say something like it has been such a pleasure working with you that I feel the need to give back to the less fortunate. X charity seems to me to be the most effiecent way to do that as far as I know and I couldn't have supported it without you.

"Do something like divide your clients into two random groups and send this message to half."

Interesting idea.

2
david_reinstein
Good but I don’t quite see the logic of “ it has been such a pleasure working with you that I feel the need to give back to the less fortunate”. How does one follow from the other?
1
Ebenezer Dukakis
One idea to be less preachy is to frame your donation as a thank you from its recipients to your client. E.g. you could say something like: "I got the money you wired me. Thank you. I thought it might warm your heart to know that I donated 10% of the money to X organization, and as a result Y outcome occurred. So, you have made some Z individuals quite thankful as well!" Basically sort of give them a taste of what it feels like to give effectively. BTW, I suspect communicating this info will work better in live conversation. If you communicate in live conversation, you create a space for them to ask questions and learn more, plus over time you might get better at bringing it up in a way that's not weird.

Probably depends on how you describe it and frame it.

Yeah, I think there are ways to frame it so it isn't super preachy. E.g. have an "About Me" section on your website that mentions your pledge. Or mention your annual donations during chitchat about the holidays.

I guess it is ok to mention it, particularly in a holiday gift. Specifically I would feel it is ok to mention what it achieved without being preachy. Some companies use smaller amounts (1%) to signal social impact.

Thanks for the feedback!

"Some companies use smaller amounts (1%) to signal social impact." 

My company isn't currently big enough for 1% to have any impact though 😅 I was actually thinking of potentially donating 20% of revenue by matching clients' donations to EA's top charities up to 10%.

3
PabloAMC 🔸
If you feel uncomfortable with being preachy perhaps donation matching may feel more so than just highlighting that you are donating a percentage of earnings.
1
David_R 🔸
I hear that. Donation matching shows it's not just preaching for no reason.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal