To use an analogy from accounting: recruiting and fundraising are operating expenditure. You need to make the investment every year to get the same returns. Community building is more like capital expenditure - you're investing in assets from which you expect future value to flow.

Surely recruiting is a capital expenditure in this framework?

it's full of dumb criticisms and bitter, jealous people

Really? It's full of this stuff? I've been reading it for 5+ years and barely seen this. Can someone who agrees with this provide examples?

The point of UU is to have certain differences from traditional religion. UU encourages questioning traditional religion, but it discourages questioning of UU's own positions.

EA encourages questioning of EA's principles. I could get hundreds of upvotes by writing a post about why ITN is a bad framework and should be ditched, whereas you'd get tarred and feathered for suggesting that a UU congregation should drop one of their seven principles.

shrug that's fine, I don't mind the downvotes, but can we also enforce epistemic standards along with niceness? The above comment is refuting a strawman while not engaging with the rate of increase of AI capabilities which are the crux of the post.

And when a strong candidate turns down a CG offer, the result is often not “a slightly-less-good grantmaker," it’s just one fewer grantmaker. We routinely close rounds with fewer hires than we'd planned for.

Why? Shouldn't you make an offer to the runner-up?

Ultimately, it is better to debate the merits of specific interventions than general vibes.

Huh? Weren't you quiting a job to start an org to fix the vibes?

This is a very impressively daft comment.

Revenue and benchmarks and razor blades aside, let's look at the object level. Have you used a frontier model recently? How smart were they three years ago and how smart are they now?

How can I refer a candidate to you?

Your point number 3 is counterproductive and reduces the effectiveness of your donations. It's understandable to do that if the alternative is that you wouldn't give the money away at all, but if charitable opportunities are really power-law distributed in effectiveness (which I think is directionally correct) then you're reducing the good done by your donations by >55%.

FRI has informed decisions on frontier AI companies' capability scaling policies

Their scaling policies are not very good (or are ignored in favor of profits and increased scaling) so I don't see how this is a win for forecasting. Unless you're saying they would be even worse without FRI, which I don't think is true (they'd probably behave the same regardless).