A lot of people seem to conflate 'democracy' with 'status quo institutions and center-left parties', but in many cases these are deeply illiberal and undemocratic. I think you would benefit from considering institutional / center-left threats to democracy, which quite glossed over in this essay.

When I think about threats to democracy, I think of things like:

• Cancelling or repeatedly delaying elections if your party is expected to lose.
• Criminal convictions for satire of incumbent politicians.
• Preventing opposition legislators from being allowed to vote.
• Considering banning popular opposition parties.
• Arresting over 10,000 people a year for 'offensive' speech.
• Unprecedented and Illegal use of emergency powers to crack down on disruptive but non-violent protests.

None of these violations of individual rights or the ability of the people to affect policy through political change were enacted by populist or extremist parties - they were enacted by generally respected and left-wing incumbents.

Thanks for writing this up, nice post. A few quick thoughts:

The motivation of praise seems quite weak. I think a lot of people would prefer no praise and no oversight over subjecting to any degree of audit. Though I guess if you are just checking with the charities that doesn't require subjecting the donor to anything directly.

It's strange to me that governments don't do more to praise high tax payers. In general their relationship with the highest tax payers seems very adversarial... yes audits make sense, but why not also be publicly grateful, give honours, invite to special events and so on? If donating to a university will have them name a building after you, maybe the government should name some bridges after its top funders.

At least until people accept that "oh the AI wrote that bit, I don't exactly mean that" is unacceptable. If you post it, you should stand behind every word.

But after the first 50 customers, I run out of jackfruit, and the rest of the customers don't get to try the tacos. How do you think those customers would feel about my restaurant?

Quite possibly they infer this must be the most exciting new product, feel FOMO, and arrive even earlier the next day? Restaurant behaviour is weird - see for example how long lines are seen as a sign of success rather than mispricing.

The context of this quote, which you have removed, is discussion of the reasonableness of wages for specific people with specific skills. Since neither Nate nor Eliezer's counterfactual is earning the median global wage, your statistic seems irrelevant. 

Thanks for sharing this. Do you have a sense for how cruxy your perspective is that long run replacement of humanity by AI is not a bad thing for you conclusion? 

Thanks for writing this up! Despite the title I found it very informative and interesting.

It might be helpful if you could share what types of data you are able to collect, and your best-effort at producing a BOTEC for your cost-effectiveness so far.

If the phenomena you are highlighting is that Animal Welfare gets a smaller share of funding than people would prefer, it seems very strange to 'blame' AI messaging, since AI risk also gets a smaller share of funding that the surveys suggest would be preferred. Based on your methodology, the phenomena to explain is why does global welfare get so much more.

No-one in this thread is the target audience for the campaign. And you are clearly attacking another group's effort right here!