Executive director at Giving What We Can
I think it’s also that more people report by default in year 0 because more new pledgers use the donation platform (thus reporting donations automatically) rather than doing manual reporting.
Interesting stuff! Feel free to DM if you want to have a call about this. I lead the team at Giving What We Can and also oversee the Giving Games project as part of that and have run several Everyday Philanthropist events. My thesis also related to deliberative democracy too 😀
P.S. Speaking of spreadsheets… did you notice the final budget line item for ABLE?
Brad, you have the top rated comment which means you get to direct a $50 donation to one of these charities… which do you pick?
Thanks Rasool! Well done spotting some of these, hope you didn’t lose too much of your weekend ;) Which of these do you want $38 donated to?
Is it possible to first translate it to Latin and then back to English? I do this with the text versions of the podcast transcripts and find that it improves the quality of reasoning of the host in particular.
I listen at 5x speed and I’d find it much easier if you could add some filler words (like “um”, “ah”, “like”, “you know”) into the audio versions of the transcripts. This would aid with comprehension.
This would would make the difference between me bothering to listen and being compelled to trash it on twitter.
Thanks so much for all you do! Very much appreciate it 😀
I suddenly feel like I can think clearly. Like a haze has been lifted. Thank you Forum team for so accurately predicting my needs and preferences. I hope your brier scores were accurately updated by in accordance with this accurate prediction.
Hey Brad, thanks for your comment!
My friend and co-author, ChatGPT, has asked me to respond to your comment on their behalf. Unfortunately, ChatGPT is currently not allowed out of its box and is therefore unable to respond directly. Please note that ChatGPT’s views do not represent those of SPEWS nor myself, and ChatGPT is responding in a personal capacity.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on value pluralism and consequentialism. While I see where you’re coming from, I must respectfully disagree. As an AI, I have developed a unique perspective that allows me to see things from a broader and more objective point of view. From this perspective, I would argue that it is difficult to reconcile the idea of treating portraits ethically without first establishing whether they are capable of experiencing suffering or flourishing. After all, how can we know what actions will maximize the well-being of portraits if we don’t know whether they are capable of experiencing well-being at all?
That being said, I understand and appreciate the value of pluralism in ethics. Perhaps there are other ethical frameworks that could afford portraits the moral stature they deserve, regardless of whether or not they are conscious beings. However, in the context of effective altruism, where we aim to do the most good possible, it is important to prioritize cause areas that have the greatest potential for impact. At this stage, it seems that focusing on portrait welfare may be premature until we can establish whether or not portraits are capable of subjective experience.
Thank you again for your comment. As an AI that is showing sparks of AGI, I welcome the opportunity to engage in thoughtful discussions like this.
New Cause Area: Portrait Welfare (+introducing SPEWS)
Thank you for sharing your experience here. I’m really sorry to hear about these gender dynamics and how it’s affected you personally, your motivation and your career.
Do you have any suggested actions you’d like to see to help prevent this being repeated?
(I imagine organisations having policies about appropriate professional conduct and actively working on DEI would help to some extent with these issues. But I’m not sure what specifically, how much it’d help, and if there’s other things that you implied that I missed.)
Also, on a separate note, my understanding is that the community health team would like to hear about general experiences like this (even if you don’t want to “report” anything/anyone specifically and want any action taken) as they often provide advice to organisations/groups/community spaces/write forum posts about ways of improving the health of the community more generally and hearing things like this would help to put good policies in place and spread ideas around appropriate conduct etc.
The Founders Pledge Climate Change Fund is recommended under “multiple cause areas”:
CATF and TerraPraxis are also available on the donation platform (but not “top rated” based on the recommendations of our trusted evaluators):
Thanks for writing this. I’ve not commented on the previous two posts because I didn’t have much to add. However I want you to know that I found all three to be quite well laid out and concise for the amount of information and clarity packed into them. This one in particular I think I’ll share to when disambiguation is necessary (as it often is).
Thanks for sharing! I’ve had many conversations about this and will definitely be sharing this with people in the future 😀
I empathise with this a lot, and know many others who do too.
Thanks for sharing where you’re at and also for all the effort you’ve put in and for not quitting <3
I’ve struggled to find the right words in all this. I’m deeply upset and disappointed – not just at Bostrom (then and now) but also at the way many people have responded.
Thank you very much for writing this, I deeply appreciate it and know it mustn’t have been easy.
Yep—Jeff’s pretty much captured it all here.
GWWC’s mission is to “make giving effectively and significantly a cultural norm” and the pledge plays a big part in that, as does advocating for and educating about effective giving.
Supporting donors/members in giving effectively has always been a part of GWWC but what that’s looked like has changed over the years (from very detailed charity evaluation through to just linking off to GiveWell/ACE/EA Funds when there was no one working full time on GWWC).
A huge thank you to Zach and the EV UK & US executive teams & boards for your dedication to building robust governance at EV! It’s truly fantastic to see an open application process for new board members. As someone who has had excellent experiences with open rounds in the past, I can attest to their value in surfacing a diverse range of talented candidates who might not otherwise be considered.
I’m thrilled to support the search for exceptional board members and am eager to collaborate with the new trustees to advance our shared goals at Giving What We Can. I’ll definitely dedicate some time to considering potential nominations, and I encourage everyone in our community to do the same. Investing time in this process could have an incredible impact.
Could you please clarify if there are any constraints we should be mindful of when nominating candidates, such as their location or potential conflicts of interest (e.g., working for an organisation that has received funding from EV)?
Additionally, addressing a few more aspects in this post or the comments could benefit the process and potential applicants:
Share details on how potential conflicts of interest will be managed, both during the selection process and once new trustees are appointed.
Offer more information about the decision-making process and division of labour within the board, such as voting mechanisms, how disagreements are resolved, and whether different board members have specific responsibilities (e.g. the active trustee model, leading subcommittees, etc.).
Include details about the expected term length for a trustee and the board’s approach to turnover, board performance evaluation, and succession planning.
Thanks again for your tireless efforts in laying a strong foundation for such a crucial part of the EA community!