Upvoted because I'm glad you answered the question (and didn't use EA grant money for this).

Disagreevoted because as an IMO medalist, I neither think science olympiad medalists are really such a useful audience, nor do I see any value in disseminating said fanfiction to potential alignment researchers.

Personally I don't believe in a "trusted person", as a concept. I think EA has had its fun trying to be a high trust environment where some large things are kept private, and it backfired horribly.

I'll take <agree> <disagree> votes to indicate how compelling this would be to readers.

That was the aim of my comment as well, so I do hope more people actually vote on it.

I was initially impressed and considered donating to the fund in the future, but then noticed the ~$300K grant without a public report. I can't see myself donating to a fund that doesn't say what it's doing with almost 30% of its disbursed funds.

I came to this discussion by following a link from the Animal Welfare Fund's report where it gave out a large grant which isn't publicly disclosed.

He really did love carrots. I seem to remember him saving me from (what was possibly) hypoglycemia in the middle of a hike by giving me a carrot.

May his memory be a blessing.

Personally since my grant was probably too small to justify the effort of a clawback, and the statute of limitations had passed, I donated all of it, divided between the GiveWell top charities fund and GiveDirectly.

I somehow missed that 🤦🏼‍♂️.

Having previously criticised the lack of transparency in the EAG admissions process, I'm happy to see this post. Strongly upvoted.

With all the scandals we've seen in the last few years, I think it should be very evident how important transparency is. See also my explanation from last year.

...some who didn't want to be named would have not come if they needed to be on a public list, so barring such people seems silly...

How is it silly? It seems perfectly acceptable, and even preferable, for people to be involved in shaping EA only if they agree for their leadership to be scrutinized.

The EA movement absolutely cannot carry on with the "let's allow people to do whatever without any hindrance, what could possibly go wrong?" approach.