Software Developer at Giving What We Can, trying to make giving significantly and effectively a social norm.
Lorenzo Buonanno🔸
Karma: 5,497
funding for non-AI projects has dried up
What are you basing this on? I think the opposite is going on. Some datapoints that come to mind:
Coefficient Giving more than doubled their funding for GiveWell for 2026, adding $175M on top of the existing $100M. They also started two new funds
GiveWell’s funding from non-Coefficient Giving donors is also increasing
Founders Pledge went from $25M money moved in 2022 → $80M in 2023 → $140M in 2024, and other major funders are emerging
Giving Green influences >$17M/year in climate donations, and recently started research into biodiversity projects
The EA Animal Welfare fund raised >$10M/y last year and is now targeting $20M/y
https://jobs.probablygood.org/ has 148 roles published in the last 4 days, only 10 of which are explicitly categorized as AI safety (although a few more involve AI)
Charity Entrepreneurship is launching more and more charities per year, and AIM as a whole has more programs
Thanks for sharing! I’d have guessed they would be using something at least as good as pangram, but maybe it has too many false negatives for them, or it was rejected for other reasons and the wrong rejection message was shown.
Literally just cranked out a 2 minute average quality comment and got accused of being a bot lol. Great introduction to the forum. To be fair they followed up well and promptly, but it was a bit annoying because it was days later and by that stage the thread had passed ant the comment was irrelevent.
As an ex forum moderator I can sympathize with them, not a fun job!
my first post on LessWrong was scrapped because they identified it as AI written
I’m surprised to read this, can you check your post on https://www.pangram.com/ ?
The link seems to be broken
https://benefficienza.it/ (spelled with two Fs) has a lot of material on effective giving in Italian, in case it’s useful, although nothing on catholicism as far as I’m aware.
Some EA articles were translated here: https://altruismoefficace.it/blog
And the EA handbook a few years ago was translated here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/ea-italy (I don’t know if it changed much since then)
There was also this article in the major Italian Catholic newspaper after the FTX scandals, which was not entirely negative, but still mostly skeptical.
To clarify, it was just in a Google Reviews carousel they also have on the homepage, at the bottom of the page, and it was quickly removed
But I’m not sure how fruitful it is for all of us to have a vibes-based conversation about the possible merits of this campaign.
I think promoting good norms and making them more “common knowledge” is one of the few ways that EA Forum conversations can maybe be useful.
As in, I think it’s good that “everyone knows that everyone knows” that we should have a strong bias to be collaborative towards other projects with similar goals, and these threads can help a bit with that.
(To be clear, my sense is that FarmKind is already well aware of this and this is collaborative campaign, especially after reading their comment. I mean for the EA Forum readers community as a whole)
Edit: new comment from FarmKind
Thank you for sharing this. I’m personally very surprised to see this campaign from FarmKind after reading “With friends like these” from Lewis Bollard and “professionalization has happened, differences have been put aside to focus on higher goals and the drama overall has gone down a lot” from Joey Savoie.
I would have expected the ideal way to promote donations to animal welfare charities to be less antagonizing towards vegan-adjacent people.
@Vasco Grilo🔸given that your name is on thehttps://www.forgetveganuary.com/campaign and you’re active on this forum, I’m curious what you think about this. Were you informed?Edit: they will remove that section from the page
My understanding is that $47k is the estimated time-discounted average lifetime high-impact donations from a 10% pledger, but does not discount for the fact that many pledgers (especially the largest donors giving much more than 10%) would have donated significantly with or without a 10% pledge, so only a fraction of that is counterfactually due to the existence of the 10% pledge and pledge advocacy (whether by gwwc or by others)
Giving What We Can conservatively values the lifetime value of a 🔸 10% Pledge at $100K USD (inflation adjusted to 2024)
Quick note that the number on the GWWC website is about one order of magnitude lower
But of course these are averages, and the people you inspire could give significantly more/less, or significantly more/less counterfactually
will downvote myself for spreading false info, and wasting people’s time here.
That seems excessive, it was a reasonable question. I would let other readers decide whether it should be upvoted or downvoted.
But I am surprised you didn’t Google “Against Malaria Foundation Crypto” or something like that, it seems faster than asking here.
Yes this post is very much “why I donate” and definitely not “why everyone should donate”.
Most people are also not atheists, much poorer ( see gwwc.org/hrai ), value their wellbeing hundreds of times more then the wellbeing of others, and don’t view spending money as voting on how the global economy allocates its resources, so all other paragraphs in this post would also not apply.
In that paragraph I mention what I perceive the effect of extra spending vs extra donating to be on others because that informs why I personally donate, I could have phrased it better.
From what I can tell, most orgs I’ve checked don’t offer this option through their websites (for example, GWWC, Horizon, and AMF).
GWWC accepts crypto donations (from most countries) and stock donations (from the US) above $1,000 USD, see https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/faq/can-i-donate-cryptocurrency-stocks-or-other-appreciated-assets
AMF accepts crypto donations: https://www.againstmalaria.com/donate_Crypto.aspx and stock donations: https://www.againstmalaria.com/donate_securities.aspxFor others, I see that Effective Altruism DC mentions contacting them via email on https://www.effectivealtruismdc.org/contribute , I think sending a quick email can often help.
Yeah you literally wrote:
“Under my Christian worldview, nothing I have is really ‘mine’ anyway, and part of being a good human is to pass on what I’ve been handed, and even better multiply it if possible.”
I think how I see it feels a bit different because I see money more as tool to use than as a resource to share. I think it should be used to help improve the lives of others, but it does importantly feel that it’s my responsibility that mine gets used that way. Not sure if that makes sense.
Thanks! I wouldn’t overgeneralize the model of “money as votes”: I’m not an economist but I think the situation in practice is much more complex and wouldn’t apply well to “burning money” (e.g. buying things gives the market information and incentives, and central banks have a target inflation rate, so your “votes” wouldn’t be redistributed in the way you’d expect)
I do find it a useful model to keep in mind when thinking about spending, and I think it applies well enough to “yachts/pizza vs bednets” to be useful.
You probably want to reach out to the EA Global team about these kinds of things. You can find their contact info on the EAG page here:
Thank you! Quick note that “money not being yours” is not what I personally believe or wanted to convey in the post. I (sometimes) think my money is my votes, and I want to use them to vote for the things I think are most valuable.
I think it was Amrit’s great post and others that mentioned things like “I don’t think there’s an especially important sense in which “my” money is mine”
Thanks! I think that’s a great way to phrase it and captures a core reason why I donate, and what I wanted to express in this post.
Not run by Giving What We Can, see GWWC is retiring 10 initiatives.
If there is enough interest, I guess people could self-organize like with the first one
It’s not just that these orgs are still getting a lot of funding:
their funding is significantly increasing
there’s many more of them
many of them are making more and more varied grants themselves, e.g. GiveWell making 2 <$100k grants in 2026 which they didn’t use to do 5 years ago, Founders Pledge brand new Catalytic Impact Fund
I’m surprised by this, I think there’s a ton today. I’m not following this space actively but, besides the >100 job openings and >3 AIM programs mentioned above, here’s some off the top of my head:
High Impact Professionals Impact Accelerator Program
CEA bootcamp (which as far as I know is not mainly about AI)
School for Moral Ambition fellowships and circles
Magnify Mentoring mentee applications (I think it now accepts more people than WANBAM did five years ago, but can’t quickly find numbers. I see it got $371k from Coefficient Giving in August 2025, and their revenue seems to be increasing)
Animal Advocacy Careers course and career advising
Their Job Board has 21 job openings from last week
You can also have a look at the most recent posts tagged “opportunities to take action” and the EA opportunities board, there’s lots of non-AI stuff, enough to overwhelm newcomers as much as EA in 2021, and likely way more than EA in 2017.
Also in general if Coefficient Giving and others are making more grants to more things, it likely means that there are more opportunities.