How fungible do donations to anti-AI-xrisk charities tend to be with the broader pool of EA money?
For context: I tend to expect anti-AI-xrisk donations to be the highest-value ones I can make. My workplace offers $10,000 per year of donation-matching to a limited set of charities. None of these charities, from what I’ve managed to find during recent searches, particularly directly do anti-AI-xrisk work. However, off in other EA space, one of the charities they support matched donations to is Effective Ventures. This leaves me with a question: for my first $10,000 of donations next year, should I expect to get better value by doing a matched donation to Effective Ventures or by doing a non-matched donation to my anti-AI-xrisk charity of choice?
As far as I can tell, the answer here comes down to the sub-question of what the fungibility-patterns at play are. If I can reasonably expect that money I put into Effective Ventures will cause other donors to put money-they’d-otherwise-have-put-there into the anti-AI-xrisk field instead, I should do the matched donation to Effective Ventures; if I can’t reasonably expect that, then I should just donate to the anti-AI-xrisk field directly.
Have the patterns here been studied at all? I know GiveWell has made some attempts to incorporate that sort of fungibility effect into their own models, but haven’t seen it discussed in much detail outside of the GiveWell context.
How fungible do donations to anti-AI-xrisk charities tend to be with the broader pool of EA money?
For context: I tend to expect anti-AI-xrisk donations to be the highest-value ones I can make. My workplace offers $10,000 per year of donation-matching to a limited set of charities. None of these charities, from what I’ve managed to find during recent searches, particularly directly do anti-AI-xrisk work. However, off in other EA space, one of the charities they support matched donations to is Effective Ventures. This leaves me with a question: for my first $10,000 of donations next year, should I expect to get better value by doing a matched donation to Effective Ventures or by doing a non-matched donation to my anti-AI-xrisk charity of choice?
As far as I can tell, the answer here comes down to the sub-question of what the fungibility-patterns at play are. If I can reasonably expect that money I put into Effective Ventures will cause other donors to put money-they’d-otherwise-have-put-there into the anti-AI-xrisk field instead, I should do the matched donation to Effective Ventures; if I can’t reasonably expect that, then I should just donate to the anti-AI-xrisk field directly.
Have the patterns here been studied at all? I know GiveWell has made some attempts to incorporate that sort of fungibility effect into their own models, but haven’t seen it discussed in much detail outside of the GiveWell context.