Jacco🔸

• Jacco🔸 8 Feb 2026 18:59 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: EA Grants Database—a new website

  Awesome; I’m really glad someone has done this properly! I’m going to add a signpost here to my post.

• Jacco🔸 16 Jan 2026 11:58 UTC

  12 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: From a fundraiser’s per­spec­tive—what do Effec­tive Altru­ists want to see from ‘other’ char­i­ties?

  I am normally a bit distrustful of any cause areas or charities that claim it is too difficult to quantify impact or calculate cost-effectiveness.

  Phrases like “the work is complex” or “data is difficult to collect” are kinda red flags to me, not because they are untrue, but because:

  • they are also true of a huge number of charities and cause areas for which EAs are able to make estimates. (These estimates might be super uncertain, and have big error bars, but they are better than nothing).

  • And because, I suspect, the actual cost-effectiveness is often likely very low, even a highly uncertain CEA would point to that, and thus excuses like “it’s too complex” are used to avoid having to confront that.

  I am instantly more trustful of any charity or cause area that attempts to estimate their cost-effectiveness, especially if they have strong reasoning transparency and highlight their key uncertainties and suspected error bars.

  • AIM /​ Charity Entrepreneurship, for example, estimates cost-effectiveness for advocacy ideas—these are extremely hard to do accurately and have massive uncertainties. They are also very much reliant on others and it is impossible to specifically isolate the charity’s impact—nonetheless, they provide a transparent, good-faith estimate. (e.g.)

• Jacco🔸 17 Dec 2025 11:19 UTC

  1 point

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: William_MacAskill’s comment on: Rerun­ning the Time of Perils

  I didn’t suspect while reading the post that it drafted heavily with AI.

  On reflection, and having now seen this comment, the writing style does feel a bit different than your other writing that I’ve read, in some fairly thematically AI ways—shorter paragraphs, punchier prose, bolded bullets, etc. I don’t know if it is better or worse—it was very easy to scan and understand quickly, but I do wonder if some of your usual precision or nuance is missing. (Though this is probably more to do with being an early stage draft rather than being AI-assisted).

• Jacco🔸 26 Nov 2025 13:16 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Andreas Jessen🔸’s comment on: His­tor­i­cal EA fund­ing data: 2025 update

  Thanks, you’re right—updated.

• Jacco🔸 26 Nov 2025 12:44 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Andreas Jessen🔸’s comment on: His­tor­i­cal EA fund­ing data: 2025 update

  Thanks Andreas! I’ve edited the post to include an additional analysis using this info.

• Jacco🔸 26 Nov 2025 12:44 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MHR🔸’s comment on: His­tor­i­cal EA fund­ing data: 2025 update

  Thanks! I’ve edited the post to include an additional analysis using this data point.

• Jacco🔸 26 Nov 2025 12:43 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jason’s comment on: His­tor­i­cal EA fund­ing data: 2025 update

  Thanks Jason! I’ve edited the post to include an additional analysis using this data point.

• Jacco🔸 25 Nov 2025 22:44 UTC

  5 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: How you can sup­port Malaria Con­sor­tium through marginal, flex­ible funding

  (commenting in a personal capacity, but note that I do work at Malaria Consortium)

  Thanks for sharing Michelle! It’s great to see more about what MC do outside SMC being discussed in an EA space.

  SMC is a fantastic, highly cost effective and well evidenced intervention. It’s fab that it gets so much GiveWell and EA support.

  But I do think it’s plausible that unrestricted funding is higher expected impact than SMC funding. I’m really uncertain about this. However, for donors looking for higher risk, “hits based” opportunities within global health and malaria, I think it’s a great option—and also a relatively neglected and funding constrained option.

  Some potential high impact work I would highlight, that unrestricted funding could support:

  • Trying to find and scale the “next SMC”

  • Piloting and analysing opportunities to layer additional interventions with existing SMC delivery infrastructure, such as oral rehydration for diarrhea (in partnership with AIM incubated Clear Solutions), therefore “multiplying” the cost-effectiveness of SMC

  • Working towards malaria elimination, rather than just control—thereby removing the need for future work (e.g., accelerating /​ supporting gene drive rollout)

  • Runway to continue vital, high impact programs in the event of funding disruption—like that caused by US funding disruption this year

  • Catalytic funding to explore new opportunities, like the potential cost-effectiveness of expanding SMC delivery to other geographies (e.g where PMI /​ USAID have historically supported SMC)

  Happy to discuss with anyone interested - I’ll also be at EA Connect next month if anyone wants to chat malaria or about MC in an informal capacity!

• Jacco🔸 17 Nov 2025 15:15 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jason’s comment on: Pilot­ing a digi­tal treat­ment for COPD, the sec­ond biggest kil­ler in In­dia (seek­ing $84K to Sept 2026)

  £350+giftaid, so £437.50 total (~$580)

• Jacco🔸 17 Nov 2025 14:06 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: FJehn’s comment on: His­tor­i­cal EA fund­ing data: 2025 update

  I should definitely have clarified that this is only pulling from OpenPhil’s grants, so is missing SFF and EA Funds grants to LTXR.

  The categorisations are not mine, they are how OpenPhil categorises their grants. I have also included some that I originally included in the “Other” category. (In the main graphs I only have navigating AI, bio /​ pandemics, and science supporting bio as LTXR from OpenPhil)

• Jacco🔸 17 Nov 2025 13:54 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Oli Munns’s comment on: Pilot­ing a digi­tal treat­ment for COPD, the sec­ond biggest kil­ler in In­dia (seek­ing $84K to Sept 2026)

  Thanks Oli.

  Is there anyone in the US that is willing to do a donation swap with me? I can make a donation to a UK-registered charity (or anything via GWWC) that you were planning to and you can make one to Respira on my behalf :)

  It looks like Donation Swap has retired, sadly.

  Edit: Jason and I have succesfully arranged a donation swap

• Jacco🔸 17 Nov 2025 13:46 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Lorenzo Buonanno🔸’s comment on: His­tor­i­cal EA fund­ing data: 2025 update

  In absolute terms, though, the drop is bigger from GH. Also OpenPhil are directing far less to GW.

  I agree that its not worthwhile thinking much about the 2025 data

• Jacco🔸 17 Nov 2025 13:43 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: FJehn’s comment on: His­tor­i­cal EA fund­ing data: 2025 update

  Yes there are more detailed breakdowns. I’ve done some super quick analysis in a new tab in the sheet—you can take a look but broadly it looks like there is more money for AI, and about the same for other areas compared to the last ~5 years. I.e. AI funding is additional /​ at the expense of non-LTXR cause areas.

• Jacco🔸 16 Nov 2025 18:34 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Pilot­ing a digi­tal treat­ment for COPD, the sec­ond biggest kil­ler in In­dia (seek­ing $84K to Sept 2026)

  Thanks for the write-up! Great to learn more about how you’re progressing.

  Is there a tax-efficient way to donate from the UK?

• Jacco🔸 14 Nov 2025 18:33 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Scale-up: the ne­glected bot­tle­neck fac­ing al­ter­na­tive proteins

  Thanks for the post!

  In case you haven’t seen it (I’m sure you probably have!), AIM are looking to incubate a charity focussed on lobbying to secure scale-up funding for AP.

  Do you have views on what you would want this new charity to look like? To ensure it is complementary to GFI’s work and future plans?

• Jacco🔸 14 Nov 2025 14:35 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Toby Tremlett🔹’s comment on: His­tor­i­cal EA fund­ing data: 2025 update

  Thanks Toby! And yes, I definitely agree it would be great if anyone can double check this :)