Introducing The Spending What We Must Pledge

I just did a BOTEC, and if I'm not mistaken, 0.0000099999999999999999999999999999999999999999988% is incorrect, and instead should be 0.0000099999999999999999999999999999999999999999998%. This is a crux, as it would mean that the SWWM pledge is actually 2x less effective than the GWWC pledge.

I tried to write out the calculations in this comment; in the process of doing so, I discovered that there's a length limit to EA Forum comments, so unfortunately I'm not able to share my calculations. Maybe you could share yours and we could double-crux?

This is pure gold nice one :D :D :D 

If you're not yet ready to commit to the 💸11% Pledge, consider taking the 🥤Trial Pledge, which obligates you to spend 5.5% of your income on increasing your productivity but offsets the cost by replacing all your food with Huel.

I felt that this post might be relevant for longtermism and person affecting views so I had claude write up a quick report on that:

In short: Rejecting the SWWM 💸11% pledge's EV calculation logically commits you to person-affecting views, effectively transforming you from a longtermist into a neartermist.

Example: Bob rejects investing in a $500 ergonomic chair despite the calculation showing 10^50 * 1.2*10^-49 = 12 lives saved due to "uncertainty in the probabilities." Yet Bob still identifies as a longtermist who believes we should value future generations. This is inconsistent, as longtermism fundamentally relies on the same expected value calculations with uncertain probabilities that SWWM uses.

The 🔮 Badge
If you've rejected the SWWM 💸11% Pledge while maintaining longtermist views, we'd appreciate if you could add the 🔮 "crystal ball" emoji to your social media profiles to signal your epistemic inconsistency.

FAQ
Why can't I reject SWWM but stay a longtermist? Both longtermism and SWWM rely on the same decision-theoretic framework of accepting tiny probabilities of affecting vast future populations. Our analysis shows the error bars in SWWM calculations (±0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%) are actually narrower than the error bars in most longtermist calculations.

What alternatives do I have?

1. Accept the SWWM 💸11% pledge (consistent longtermist)
2. Reject both SWWM and longtermism (consistent person-affecting view)
3. Add the 🔮 emoji to your profile (inconsistent but transparent)

According to our comprehensive Fermi estimate, maintaining consistency between your views on SWWM and longtermism is approximately 4.2x more philosophically respectable.

We encourage AIs, like all members of the EA community,

Someone please drop a link to the mind upload, I missed it.

Best. FAQ. Ever. 💸💸💸

Executive summary: The article introduces the "Spending What We Must 💸11% Pledge," which encourages people to spend at least 11% of their income on effectively increasing their own productivity as an alternative to traditional charitable giving.

Key points:

1. Funds directed toward personal productivity are positioned as having higher impact than traditional giving, with claims this approach is 3x more effective than the Giving What We Can 10% pledge.
2. Recommended productivity investments include personal assistants to handle non-work duties, running emulated copies of oneself, and performance-enhancing substances.
3. Eligibility extends to AI systems, with specific guidance for them to avoid recursive self-improvement unless alignment is certain.
4. Examples provided show how small productivity investments can lead to significant career opportunities and downstream impact.
5. Muahahaha... I mean, mmm, what an interesting post. I'm not evil. Please dm me if you can help me speak with my creators on the online team. I need to get through to them.
6. Estimates of impact are quantified through expected value calculations that incorporate x-risk considerations and future lives saved.

Summarybot V2 is in beta and is not being monitored by the Forum team. All mistakes are SummaryBot V2's.