I strongly agree.

Note that even the 'highly paid' COO position at CEA is arguably substantially below market rate. A COO in industry would likely get paid double or more.

S risks are a thing. There exist fates worse than death.

'significantly reduce' could mean a lot of things. I'm answering as if this reduces absolute X-risk by 20% or more over the next 10 centuries.

The article is good, but the title's claim is too strong.

Merely knowing that Malawi is a landlocked sub-Saharran African country has huge explanatory power. The question of 'We don't know why Malawi is poorer than Rwanda' seems like a better question (which the article explores).

The pushback against AI led productivity growth also seems comparatively weak. AI is not referenced until the last paragraph, and I don't think you really engage with what AI makes possible.

This is just annoying because the article is really good, but now I want to argue about the title XD

Arguing the object point is useful, and I love to see it done when possible.

Sometimes it is also useful to call out who is making the argument.

I see the argument that AI folks go from safety to capabilities made constantly (ie, every discussion of OpenAI's origin). It seems correct but neither novel nor controversial in EA/rat spaces. EX: Habyka's last point on: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MqgwHJ93pJpaeHXs6/posts-i-don-t-have-time-to-write

Maybe we are reading different folks though. Do you have specific examples of you making conflict-of-interest arguments and folks on the forum pushing back on you to instead argue the object-level-point?

Oh totally. I'm lucky to be in the Bay Area where EA is a thing at all.

The explanation is IMO less about frugality and more about getting lucky with my career choice. I spend about 45k a year, which is kinda frugal for my peers but globally I'm a spendthrift. I spend about 1.8k a month on rent, a few hundred on food, and take a vacation once or twice a year. My main hobbies are cheap (video games, board games, birding, pickleball).

It is often much easier to make more money than it is to save more. I would personally focus more on that side of the equation.

My wife & I don't want kids. If we did, I probably would want to save more (just for college). But even if we did, we were very lucky to have software engineering jobs over the last 10 years. We'd basically be fine.

Very fair, I'm definitely speaking from the perspective of a rich Westerner working with other rich Westerners.

Earning to give is lonely and requires repeated decisions. This is bad.

If you're earning to give, you are lucky if you have one EtG team-mate. The people you talk to every day do not have moral intuitions similar to yours, and your actions seem weird to them.

If you do direct work, the psychological default every day is to wake up and do work. You are surrounded by people who think the work is important, and whose moral values at least rhyme with your own.

If you earn to give, most days you do not give (you're probably paid bi-weekly, and transaction costs discourage even donating that frequently).

These differences apply continual pressure for EtG folks to become less hard-core than we intended to be. I wish I had more counter-pressure.

[None of these observations are novel]

Thanks Nick, this comment was helpful.

The note that appreciated-stock donations are capped at 30% of my taxable is particularly relevant this year.

And good point that the charity has to deal w/ liquidation, so illiquid stock is less useful for orgs with near term needs.

100% agreed it is so tempting to donate next year (or the year after etc).