I'm pledging[1] to stop[2] saving[3] additional[4] money[5] & donate instead.
Fine print:
[1] This pledge is only good until 2030 unless renewed, and becomes invalid if I start working at a nonprofit.
[2] I'm still allowed to max out my 401k, partially since I have a 50% match there.
[3] Spending money is fine. I only spend 5% my gross, so that isn't the problem.
[4] I'm allowed to keep up with inflation, should the stock market not already do so.
[5] I'm allowed to keep saving illiquid equity, although I am encouraged to liquidate to the extent feasible to align with the spirit of the pledge.
There's lots of talk about how more EA-aligned funding will attract grifters. The Robin Hanson in me wondered what expensive or hard-to-fake signals exist for (human) alignment.
The first ideas that came to mind:
I don't know whether folks should weight these highly in funding decisions. Probably they all collapse under sufficient pressure.
The kind of grifting that most concerns me within EA would result in a lot of fudging and inflation around reported impact in order to gain money & status. I think the hardest thing is fake, and the main thing we care about protecting, is real, verifiable impact. If there is an influx of money into EA, I would want the first thing to be done is to undertake a lot of new, third-party evaluation with depth. This is not happening today and I have not seen great plans to do so right now.
In my view, this one of EA's biggest problem. Even GiveWell rarely bothers to verify numbers if it's boring or manual to do so (e.g. number of people vaccinated, number of bednets delivered). Even when past charity evaluations could be calibrated against third party data sources, nobody bothers. We're allocating billions using tools we've never bother to calibrate.
Without anyone establishing anything resembling ground truth, there is no accurate feedback signal for leaders, grantmakers, donors. When the only signal is what LOOKS impactful, and that's how all money and status is awarded, that's what everyone will clamour after. We're going to learn the wrong lessons, fund the wrong projects, hire the wrong people, and then never find out.
Tons of money. Zero verification. Every fraud's wet dream come true.
See also this comment which I also agree with.
One point where I disagree is that I'm more concerned about well-intentioned people genuinely believing their project is extremely valuable, but who lack clear evidence of impact and end up not achieving much. I'm less worried about people deliberately lying/exaggerating to raise money for things they do not themselves believe are impactful.
But of course it's hard to say from the outside, you could always argue that people are secretly doing whatever they're doing just for the money & status, and I've seen people making such claims even when there's tons of evidence to the contrary.
Sure, if you can directly measure what you actually want (positive impact), that is of course best :)
Frankly, if you can’t measure your work in a that an independent person could evaluate, I would be very skeptical that you’re having any impact at all.
Here's another list from Caroline Ellison during the FTX times on valuable signals: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/M44i4CiMECP5Xoorz/demandingness-and-time-money-tradeoffs-are-orthogonal (which I'm not sure I agree with, but I found interesting)
I personally think people worry disproportionately about grift on the EA Forum, while implementation challenges and other considerations seem to be bigger risks in practice. (e.g. I don't think the Wytham project or Dispensers for Safe Water would have been more successful if they had been assigned to more vegan or more frugal people)
I agree with all of this. One thing missing is just joining AIS/EA before it was cool/got much more money.
Feels like most of these except the kidney are fairly easily faked or not that relevant. Community engagement and working for your own non-profit are about the first thing anyone seeking to grift will do, as well as people who are sincere (including as others have pointed out, the people who are sincerely wrong)
And Sam Bankman Fried was a vegan who apparently started off with a completely sincere desire to work for animal nonprofits. Treating these as signals and the people complaining about his behaviour and some of the things he said as noise was a bad move.
Maybe there are other signals that aren’t vulnerable to the same kind of faking, like evidence of integrity and discretion paired with a track record of impact of the type you’re looking for. Seems harder to easily evaluate, but also seems like a more common way to evaluate alignment with a cause’s mission.
Separately, while I’m vegan myself, I think using veganism as a signal is less reliable than it may appear because it appears not to meet the same effectiveness bar as other popular interventions, and there’s honest disagreement within EA on whether EAs should generally follow a vegan diet. I think I’d have the same concerns with using other marginally good but costly lifestyle choices, like donating a kidney, as a signal as well, though I haven’t thought about a lot of individual cases.