Why EA Meta Leverage: It seems empirically evidence to me that meta EA activity is influencing both the amount and the direction of funding at a ratio of at least £10 influenced £1 inputted. Evidenced: I was skeptical of what EA meta work could achieve but over the last few years this kind of giving has gone from being an idea to having demonstrated impact. Underfunded: The EA Meta Fund has than other EA Funds and on its last pay-outs it only filled about 15% of the funding gaps of the organisations it was looking to support. Collective action: If everyone in EA funded meta work rather than pet causes more money would go to good places (or we may learn we were wrong about our pet causes).
Why EA meta research not outreach I think we are still learning about how to do good and getting that right is more important than getting more money moved. This has had most impact to date and I am very unconvinced that we are getting close to diminishing marginal returns on this.
Why £3000 to HLI Happier Lives Institute are doing innovative and useful new research on subjective wellbeing data that I believe could significantly change how people in the EA community think about what causes are most important. I expect this donation combined with a donation from a collaborator can fill their funding gap at least until August 2020. I may donate more at a later date.
Why £500 each EA Meta Fund, Let’s Fund and Rethink Priorities I am not giving everything to HLI partly because I think HLI’s immediate funding gap can be filled and partly I want to influence and keep up with these other projects and partly just poor heuristics on my part. Note that my view that HLI is better than any of these 3 other donation opportunities is very weak (although I expect they have a more pressing funding gap). These 3 projects are the other EA meta (research) projects that I think it is worth supporting. Splitting between them because not sure it is worth the time / energy to evaluate and compare them all given the amount of money I am giving. I have not included GPI because I have not been as impressed by the immediate usefulness of their research or research agenda. On Let’s Fund: They are not actually asking for money but they are doing good work and always seem short of funds so will try to offer them funds. If they don’t take it will split the money between other projects.
Why £500 to AMF I am not giving everything to meta, partly I want to still force myself to think about what is the most important non meta cause and partly because I think if I am give the amount I would likely have given to non-meta causes had I not come across EA / GWWC then I help avoid the meta trap. Against Malaria Foundation are an excellent charity, continuously top-rated by GiveWell. (Giving to AMF rather than to GiveWell to distribute as not totally convinced that Deworming or GiveDirectly are as good as AMF). I might alternatively give the EA Animal Fund – need to think about this more.
Key uncertainties Is it silly to split my donations this much? Have I done enough due diligence of HLI? AMF or the EA Animal Fund?
>Leverage: It seems empirically evident to me that meta EA activity is influencing both the amount and the direction of funding at a ratio of at least £10 influenced £1 inputted.
How? Skimming through the page I see no evidence of that, it’s literally just a random hypothetical that they throw out.
Giving What We Can’s impact reports (when I last read them) suggested they had raised for effective charities £6 per £ spent using pessimistic assumptions or £60 per £ best guess.
The Life You Can Save raised $11 per $ spent for effective charities
Raising for Effective giving has raised $24 per $ spent, for effective charities.
EA London (which does not do much fundraising) roughly raised £2.5 per £.
Rethink Forward moves £7 per £.
This are all post hoc analyses of money moved to date, not estimates of future impact. The quality of the evidence for these is variable between the different programs and you can look into it. As well as moving money I believe all of cheese ALSO purport to have improved the effectiveness of donations given.
If helpful to provide a baseline / prior against which to judge these successes note that the standard fundraising ratio in the charity sector is that charities raise £4 per £ spent on fundraising.
Donation: £5,000
Cause: EA meta (+ global poverty)
Main donation: £3000 to Happier Lives Institute (HLI)
Other donations: £500 to each of EA meta Fund, Let’s Fund, Rethink Priorities, Against Malaria Foundation (AMF)
Why EA Meta
Leverage: It seems empirically evidence to me that meta EA activity is influencing both the amount and the direction of funding at a ratio of at least £10 influenced £1 inputted.
Evidenced: I was skeptical of what EA meta work could achieve but over the last few years this kind of giving has gone from being an idea to having demonstrated impact.
Underfunded: The EA Meta Fund has than other EA Funds and on its last pay-outs it only filled about 15% of the funding gaps of the organisations it was looking to support.
Collective action: If everyone in EA funded meta work rather than pet causes more money would go to good places (or we may learn we were wrong about our pet causes).
Why EA meta research not outreach
I think we are still learning about how to do good and getting that right is more important than getting more money moved. This has had most impact to date and I am very unconvinced that we are getting close to diminishing marginal returns on this.
Why £3000 to HLI
Happier Lives Institute are doing innovative and useful new research on subjective wellbeing data that I believe could significantly change how people in the EA community think about what causes are most important. I expect this donation combined with a donation from a collaborator can fill their funding gap at least until August 2020. I may donate more at a later date.
Why £500 each EA Meta Fund, Let’s Fund and Rethink Priorities
I am not giving everything to HLI partly because I think HLI’s immediate funding gap can be filled and partly I want to influence and keep up with these other projects and partly just poor heuristics on my part. Note that my view that HLI is better than any of these 3 other donation opportunities is very weak (although I expect they have a more pressing funding gap).
These 3 projects are the other EA meta (research) projects that I think it is worth supporting. Splitting between them because not sure it is worth the time / energy to evaluate and compare them all given the amount of money I am giving. I have not included GPI because I have not been as impressed by the immediate usefulness of their research or research agenda.
On Let’s Fund: They are not actually asking for money but they are doing good work and always seem short of funds so will try to offer them funds. If they don’t take it will split the money between other projects.
Why £500 to AMF
I am not giving everything to meta, partly I want to still force myself to think about what is the most important non meta cause and partly because I think if I am give the amount I would likely have given to non-meta causes had I not come across EA / GWWC then I help avoid the meta trap.
Against Malaria Foundation are an excellent charity, continuously top-rated by GiveWell. (Giving to AMF rather than to GiveWell to distribute as not totally convinced that Deworming or GiveDirectly are as good as AMF).
I might alternatively give the EA Animal Fund – need to think about this more.
Key uncertainties
Is it silly to split my donations this much?
Have I done enough due diligence of HLI?
AMF or the EA Animal Fund?
>Leverage: It seems empirically evident to me that meta EA activity is influencing both the amount and the direction of funding at a ratio of at least £10 influenced £1 inputted.
How? Skimming through the page I see no evidence of that, it’s literally just a random hypothetical that they throw out.
Giving What We Can’s impact reports (when I last read them) suggested they had raised for effective charities £6 per £ spent using pessimistic assumptions or £60 per £ best guess.
The Life You Can Save raised $11 per $ spent for effective charities
Raising for Effective giving has raised $24 per $ spent, for effective charities.
EA London (which does not do much fundraising) roughly raised £2.5 per £.
Rethink Forward moves £7 per £.
This are all post hoc analyses of money moved to date, not estimates of future impact. The quality of the evidence for these is variable between the different programs and you can look into it. As well as moving money I believe all of cheese ALSO purport to have improved the effectiveness of donations given.
If helpful to provide a baseline / prior against which to judge these successes note that the standard fundraising ratio in the charity sector is that charities raise £4 per £ spent on fundraising.