Sam Anschell

• Sam Anschell 8 Sep 2026 13:44 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Brittney Nial’s comment on: 14 High-Im­pact Pro­jects for Am­bi­tious Students

  Thanks for flagging that, Brittney—does this invite work without a CEA email?

• Sam Anschell 6 Sep 2026 19:47 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Brittney Nial’s comment on: Build­ing a Cam­pus EA Group in No Time (Re­sources for Stu­dents!)

  Thank you, Brittney—absolutely! I’m not sure if there’s a writeup on this tabling strategy, but the idea is to run mini giving games to help passersby engage in a fun activity and learn about effective giving.

  In practice, this could look like:

  • Tablers invite students to answer 5 trivia questions related to EA. For every question that a student’s answer is within an order of magnitude of the true answer, the student can allocate $10 in donations (using group funds) to an effective charity from a provided list of options.

    • An example question could be “on average, how many lives does the research organization GiveWell estimate the world’s most cost-effective global health charities can save for a million dollars?” If the answer is 200, then students who provide an answer between 20 and 2,000 have provided a “correct” answer within the margin of error.
      

  • After a student answers each question, the tabler tells them how many they got correct, and what the true answer is. Hopefully students have a “Woah” reaction, like in this GWWC video! The tabler asks student to allocate their “budget” (i.e, if they get four correct, they have $40 to allocate across a menu of effective charities). The tabler logs the donation and asks the student to sign up for the group’s email list so that they receive an email with receipts of every student’s allocated donations across effective charities.
    

  • Finally, the tablers make the donations and send a followup email to everyone who participated celebrating the impact of the gift. This helps new joiners be a part of something unique and exciting, and hopefully motivates them to attend group meetings.

  Brown EA got 165 on signups at their admitted students day by running a similar giving game! One last note is that I think this idea is a better fit for tabling outside of the club fair; the club fair usually has so much foot traffic that you may be able to secure more signups by giving passersby a 30 second intro on the group and asking if they’re interested in adding their email to the listserv (rather than running a 3 minute trivia game for each person).

  Wishing your group all the best, thank you so much for organizing!

• Sam Anschell 13 Jul 2026 22:31 UTC

  23 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: My TED Talk on end­ing child­hood lead poi­son­ing is live

  This is one of my favorite talks ever. Clear, gripping, heartbreaking, and uplifting all in ten minutes; not a word wasted.
  
  Thank you to everyone at Pure Earth for the work you do on this incredibly important issue, I’m excited to send this talk to friends and family.

• Sam Anschell 12 Jul 2026 21:03 UTC

  6 points

  4 ∶ 0

  on: MacKen­zie Scott’s $26 billion, in QALYs: an in­ter­ac­tive, ev­i­dence-weighted CEA

  Thank you for doing this work, I really appreciate how transparent and easy to interact with this is (especially for someone like me who doesn’t have a technical or econometric background).

  If you or anyone else reading this is up for it, I would love to see followup writing and analysis on the most impactful gifts from Yield Giving across each of its focus areas. It would be wonderful to incorporate a plurality of values in addition to QALYs (e.g, LAYS for education, income gains for financial security, WELLBYs for mental health, a combination of innovation, redistribution, carbon, and earnings gains for individuals & cities for housing, etc).

  I think that independent analysis can be an incredibly valuable resource for a philanthropist, particularly one giving with the scale and trust of Mackenzie Scott (I loved GiveWell’s change our mind contest!) By highlighting “best buys” from Yield Giving’s portfolio and providing examples of other impactful organizations that might fit their strategy, this type of impartial and rigorous work can celebrate effective giving and provide a public good to the broader philanthropic ecosystem.

• Sam Anschell 24 Jun 2026 22:02 UTC

  6 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Aaron Bergman’s comment on: aaronb50′s Shortform

  Agree with the spirit of this, but I’d flag that I think it’s very important to be mindful of reputational/​downside risks for the EA movement. In my view, with more money (realized and prospective), the value of community integrity becomes even higher.

  An example of post-IPO retail philanthropy I’m excited about is giving a friend $5k to take time off and apply to high-impact jobs. As Aaron writes, individuals know about opportunities that large funders don’t!
  
  An example of post-IPO retail philanthropy I worry about is paying for an antagonistic media campaign against [X factory farm owner or public figure], which institutional funders could have chosen to fund but decided against due to reputational risk. If the funding is traced back to you, the movement’s reputation could be damaged by association. Even if it isn’t, new large funders may be dissuaded from getting involved if they see antagonistic or risky actions being funded in areas related to EA.

• Sam Anschell 18 Jun 2026 22:03 UTC

  14 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Ariel Simnegar 🔸’s comment on: Pre­dictable Up­dat­ing About Fund­ing In EA

  Great point, thanks Ariel. I wouldn’t say earning to give is necessarily suboptimal (for any cause), just that directionally more money will flow across and within major EA focus areas.
  
  My best guess is that there will be an increase in funding to animal welfare, though likely not to the extent of the funding increase to AI safety. I’m less confident in the funding landscape for digital minds, but I would guess that this field will get a boost as well (e.g, because Longview may receive more donations).

• Sam Anschell 4 Jun 2026 23:13 UTC

  6 points

  1 ∶ 1

  in reply to: Adrian Spierling🔸’s comment on: The Most Im­por­tant De­ci­sion For An­i­mals in Amer­i­can His­tory

  *Responding in a personal capacity*
  
  Hi Adrian, thanks for asking! My understanding is that Europeans (who are not US citizens) cannot make 501c4 donations.

  There are 501c3 giving opportunities – for example, earmarking gifts to the Uproot Center within Earth Share – however I’ve heard that these c3 are less cost-effective than c4 opportunities (like the AMPA linked in this post) at causing the desired legislative change.

  I’m not sure about the extent to which c3 opportunities differ from c4 opportunities in cost-effectiveness. However, I’ve heard that c4 donations are recommended for US citizens even though they are not tax-deductible, which suggests the difference in cost-effectiveness could be at least 30%.
  
  I’ll also note that the EA Animal Welfare Fund (a 501c3) still represents a very strong donation option to help animals in my view. I’m not confident in which of the Uproot Center or EA AWF is more cost-effective at the current moment, but I am confident that the EA Animal Welfare Fund is incredibly cost-effective.
  

• Sam Anschell 3 Jun 2026 18:09 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Learn­ings from a ‘viral’ Linkedin post: What AI Safety means to tal­ent out­side the ecosys­tem

  This is awesome! There are a number of factors that make sharing AI safety career opportunities feel particularly valuable to me right now:

  • AI safety roles are more abundant and lucrative now than ever before.

  • Salience of AI risks are higher now than ever before.

  • Concreteness of what people can be doing to help feels higher now than ever before (see the latest Holden Karnofsky 80k episode)

  I think Jen’s approach is very impactful (and creative/​cool!) For anyone reading this post: I think that reaching out directly to CS/​ML people in your life (e.g, SWEs who have been laid off or are fearing layoffs) to make this case and share career infrastructure resources (80k, Bluedot, High Impact Professionals, ARENA, AI Safety Map etc) represents an enormously high-leverage opportunity for impact

• Sam Anschell 18 May 2026 23:25 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: sawyer🔸’s comment on: Prepar­ing for a Flush Fu­ture: Work, Giv­ing, and Conduct

  Sure thing, Sawyer:
  
  This comment on a 2022 EA Forum post referenced that Anthropic’s job board listed “Optional equity donation matching at a 3:1 ratio, up to 50% of your equity grant” at the time.
  
  This “Longterm Wiki” article suggests that the pledge rate was 3:1 for up to half an employee’s equity from 2021-2024, and reduced to 1:1 for up to 25% of an employee’s equity starting in 2025.
  
  My understanding is that Anthropic has maintained this match rate for employees who joined and pledged equity at the time a 3:1 match was offered. I.e, a staff member who joined in 2022 and pledged 50% of their equity at a 3:1 match did not have their employer match reduced when Anthropic changed the match rate for staff who joined after the terms changed.

• Sam Anschell 8 May 2026 17:14 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: The EA case for an EA Group House + how to start one (its easy!)

  +1 that a great co-living space can be a huge quality of life improvement! My day-to-day sense of happiness and belonging in SF increased enormously once I moved into a place with friends.

  One other meaningful benefit of coordinating a housing group (at least in California) is that you can freeze your starting rent rate. E.g., a four-bedroom unit in the building I lived in was listing at $6,500/​month in 2022 when friends and I moved in. A group moved in, then vacated last year. The landlord then successfully re-listed the same unit at $9k/​month (a 38% increase). Meanwhile the rent in our unit has only increased by ~2% over the last four years because CA rent protections only allow a landlord to increase rent by a modest, state-set annual cost-of-living/​inflation rate.

  Had that 4-bedroom been able to Theseus’ ship the move-out transition—changing the names on the lease to other friends/​EAs gradually without fully vacating—they would be able to save $28,440 ($7,110 per resident) per year in perpetuity.

• Sam Anschell 6 May 2026 15:23 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: We ran the first West Coast EA Re­treat (a ret­ro­spec­tive)

  Huge props to the organizers of this retreat! Awesome to see this turnout, and the 1:1 scheduling app they created has the potential to add value across a number of future events.

  I asked the authors why they were concerned about the failure mode of with participants commuting to and from the venue each day. They helpfully sent the following:

  I think a lot of the value of these retreats comes from people spending a lot of time together and becoming friends. I’d worry that if participants commuted, they might not engage fully in the retreat (in particular, not hanging out at night, which is great for friendships, bonding, and a sense of belonging in the community).

  I wanted to share this here (with the authors’ permission) in case others had the same question.

• Sam Anschell 30 Apr 2026 17:19 UTC

  17 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: Book Re­view: All the Lives You Can Change

  Echoing praise for JD Bauman: he gave a talk for our university EA club and is an exceptional speaker. Compelling, warm, energizing, and great at fielding all sorts of questions. If any EA groups are looking for guest presenters (including for joint events with faith groups), I cannot recommend JD highly enough!

• Sam Anschell 9 Apr 2026 14:57 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Effec­tive Giv­ing for En­vi­ron­men­tal Causes

  I’m so happy you’re interested in effective climate giving! Here are a few of my favorite resource for learning about environmental/​climate giving opportunities:
  
  Giving Green’s top climate nonprofits and related research, such as Clean Air Task Force.

  Founders Pledge’s writing and recommendations around climate philanthropy.

  Coefficient Giving’s Air Quality and Lead Exposure Action funds and related reports (Air Quality, Lead exposure reduction).

  For a donor starting to explore small gifts to cost-effective climate work, I would recommend the Giving Green Fund.

  Feel free to DM me if you have any questions!

• Sam Anschell 14 Mar 2026 22:48 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: jackchang110’s comment on: Strangers call­ing: the value of warm re­sponses to cold outreach

  Hi Jack, I’m sorry to hear you’ve had a hard time finding EAs to talk with. It’s wonderful that you’re working to reduce S-risks; I hope you feel proud to be someone who is motivated to dedicate your career to such an important cause.

  In my experience, people working in technical roles or on catastrophic risks tend to work especially long hours, so I don’t think the lack of responses is a reflection on you whatsoever. If you’re looking for resources on refining your outreach messages, here are a few I like:

  • 80,000 Hours’ advice on cold-emails

  • Severin’s Advice for interacting with busy people:

  • Neel and Jemima’s Advice for Sending Cold Messages to Busy People at EAG (conferences are a great way to have lots of conversations)!

  I’m not very familiar with the career landscape for S-risks or CS-related earning to give roles, but if there’s anything you’d find helpful to speak with me about, feel free to grab a time on my calendly here: https://​​calendly.com/​​sam-anschell/​​30min

• Sam Anschell 13 Mar 2026 18:53 UTC

  13 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: In­com­ing money, in­tegrity, and col­lec­tive ac­tion problems

  [Commenting in a personal capacity]

  I really appreciate this post, and I agree that the community should be mindful of both risks.

  I think the instinct to share giving opportunities with Anthropic employees or other value-aligned prospective donors usually comes from a good place. And I would be excited to see more people apply to roles supporting donors who reach out for giving advice at the worldview level.

  But to add to Elliot’s point about the value of coordination, here are a few other considerations:

  • Before (and up to six months after) a company IPOs, there are limited opportunities for employees to convert stock options into equity or transfer equity into a DAF. If prospective donors have limited bandwidth for their giving, certain moments are uniquely valuable for them to engage. And for illiquid donors, there can be long lag times between the intent to give and the disbursement of funds; donations directed by institutional funds can sometimes help smooth this.

  • My understanding is that many prospective donors are excited to complement the work that institutional funders support. Hearing from these institutions about the promising opportunities they’re not able to fund can be an efficient way to learn about where more funding can be especially valuable. When a time-poor prospective donor receives an unsolicited proposal from one organization, it’s hard to know how this opportunity fits into the broader field.

  • As potential donations directed by institutional funders crystalize, orgs may have new opportunities to apply for funding from institutional funders. To Abaham’s point, bringing on regrantors or external consultants with fresh perspectives helps build capacity and catch blind spots. I expect that full-time grant investigators would have more context on a proposal than the donors themselves, and could more productively engage in object-level conversations with orgs applying for funding.

• Sam Anschell 3 Feb 2026 0:26 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Eli Rose🔸’s comment on: Prepar­ing for a Flush Fu­ture: Work, Giv­ing, and Conduct

  Yes that’s right! I’ll message them to see if they’re able to share more info on this thread

• Sam Anschell 23 Dec 2025 20:16 UTC

  25 points

  8 ∶ 1

  on: Offer­ing higher salaries than so­cial-sec­tor peers

  Hi Seema, thanks for this thoughtful post! I work as a grantmaker at Coefficient Giving (formerly Open Phil) and I’ve had similar thoughts in the past. Last year, CG began offering a modest severance package for staff who leave voluntarily to mitigate the golden handcuffs effect. Anecdotally, a number of colleagues have left for lower-paying jobs at other impactful nonprofits over the past year. It’s hard to say whether staff would pursue other opportunities more often if CG paid less, but it’s been reassuring to see that some staff feel comfortable leaving and the decision is celebrated by the org.

  CG’s HR team also regularly conducts benchmarking exercises to sense-check that staff compensation is in line with other foundations and roles with similar levels of responsibility. Overall, CG (and I strongly suspect GW) spends considerably less on opex than peer foundations. Staff fly economy, bureaucracy is low, and people have the tools they need to work efficiently so the ratio of money moved per FTE is high.

  A number of CG and GW staff members choose to donate some of their pay, and CG/​GW may have this in mind when setting compensation. Personally, I’ve passed up pay or donated a little over half my income this year. Some staff use part of their pay for childcare, which helps them achieve their professional ambitions while maintaining work-life balance.

  I share the concern that the ecosystem effects of drawing talent through high salaries may be under-appreciated. But when I zoom out, I directionally think that increasing compensation in the social impact space is valuable. For example, there has been a push to increase salaries in the animal advocacy field in recent years and my understanding is that this has increased professionalism and decreased workplace harassment—employers have a larger talent pool to draw from, and have an easier time replacing problematic employees.
  
  Of course, there are always tradeoffs, and I sometimes feel uncomfortable that orgs working to end poverty offer lavish compensation (even by US standards). But all things considered, I think there are fair reasons why an org like GiveWell would choose the compensation structure it does.

  On an unrelated note, I help organize Princeton’s Effective Altruism student group. We and the School for Moral Ambition club would love to host you at an event to discuss your work when you’re back from sabbatical—it’s wonderful to have a fellow randomista on campus!

• Sam Anschell 18 Nov 2025 19:49 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Epistemic Spot Check: Ex­pected Value of Donat­ing to Alex Bores’s Con­gres­sional Campaign

  Thank you for doing and sharing this work! I’ve had a hard time developing a clear understanding of the impact of political donations, and I found this post helpful

• Sam Anschell 4 Jun 2025 0:57 UTC

  15 points

  3 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Ozzie Gooen’s comment on: levin’s Quick takes

  A friend recently shared this reason for not giving (fear of an expensive medical crisis). I think if a good resource existed with the base rates of events that can cause financial hardship and solutions for reducing their likelihood (e.g., long term care insurance), this might help some people feel more comfortable with giving.
  
  I passed this along to someone at GWWC and they said this is on their list of ideas to write about.

• Sam Anschell 16 May 2025 21:22 UTC

  8 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jason’s comment on: $100,000 bounty for find­ing >$1M in le­gal and col­lab­o­ra­tive cor­po­rate dona­tion match­ing opportunities

  Thanks for this comment Jason, you raise a valid point. I do think this will be challenging — part of the motivation behind this bounty was that friends and I don’t think we could facilitate large-scale corporate donation matching through our own connections. However, there is some precedent for companies matching non-staff funds, and I can imagine a few theories of success:

  Last year, Walmart launched a campaign to match up to $2.5M in customer donations to the Red Cross. Amazon, Google, Facebook and others have run similar matching programs for specific nonprofits that are open to the public. PayPal has run public Giving Tuesday donation matching campaigns similar to Facebook’s old Giving Tuesday format.

  There is a law in India requiring certain companies to donate at least 2% of net profits to registered nonprofits; many US companies set aside a pot of resources (in tech it is often 1% of profits) for giving. So in some cases, CSR leadership merely decide how to allocate existing resources for corporate philanthropy (though in other cases, encouraging a company to give could grow the total amount they donate). With low confidence, I would guess that causes are often chosen by a single passionate senior leader at a company or by an internal champion persuading a small group of senior decisionmakers.

  I’m unsure about the extent to which retail donors’ matching funds incentivize companies to give, but I would guess that it helps at least somewhat. Executives might be excited by a $10M company-branded initiative that only “costs” the company $5M. I also think there are ways to frame retail donor co-funding as coming from community members or customers, rather than from strangers.

  I don’t have a view on whether it’s more tractable to persuade companies to pledge a pot of matching funds or to change their employee donation matching policy. I could imagine that an initiative allowing employees to lend their unused donation match for an org-wide giving event would be meaningful to many staff members, and could lead to greater orgwide morale gains than a “use-it-or-lose-it” donation match policy. I could also imagine that certain early-stage startups may be openminded about designing their donation match to include a public matching component.

  Ultimately, I’m unsure about how realistic this idea is or how likely the bounty is to get claimed. But we wanted to offer this bounty in case it might cause someone reading this post to work some magic and grow the set of resources going to great nonprofits!