4

Robert_Wiblin comments on Where are you giving and why? - Effective Altruism Forum

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (25)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Robert_Wiblin 14 December 2014 02:35:04PM *  4 points [-]

Here's some thoughts from me on this:

Effective Altruism Outreach has room for more funding and an excellent plan, so that's what I would give to personally at the moment: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/c5/effective_altruism_outreach_needs_your_donations/

I think with some confidence Giving What We Can, Charity Science and GiveWell all dominate giving to, e.g. AMF, because of the fundraising and movement-building multiplier they provide. I would expect them to be at least twice as good, and potentially more than 5 times as good.

Last I checked MIRI had a lot of reserves, so I think there's a case for holding onto your money and waiting to read the details of their scale-up plans. CSER could definitely use extra money, so if I were going to give to existential risk charity specifically that is where I would probably donate.

CFAR could be a good movement building approach, but I would want to see what evidence they've collected on their impact on their alumni before donating.

(N.B. I am personally involved with EAO and GWWC).

Comment author: Josh_Goldenberg 14 December 2014 07:18:07PM 1 point [-]

What happens to marginal unrestricted funding for CEA? If it gets distributed to projects like GWWC and EAO, it seems better to give directly to CEA, who will know where the money can be used better (assuming values align).

Comment author: Robert_Wiblin 18 December 2014 09:55:37PM 0 points [-]

This is about to change significantly, so I'll get back to you. If the decision is urgent drop me an email an I'll explain the situation!

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 14 December 2014 04:13:43PM 0 points [-]

I think with some confidence Giving What We Can, Charity Science and GiveWell all dominate giving to, e.g. AMF

What would Giving What We Can do with more funds?

Comment author: Robert_Wiblin 14 December 2014 04:54:29PM *  2 points [-]

Michelle can give a more detailed answer, but some combination of:

  • More contact with existing members (now 700 of them) to i) keep them giving for many years ii) encourage them to give more than 10% where practical iii) move more of their donations to our recommended charities.
  • Hire a Research Director who would spend most of their time absorbing and communicating the evidence for our and GiveWell's recommended charities in order to i) drive up membership through talks, media, etc ii) drive more of our members' donations to our top recommended charities.

I describe some of this here: http://effective-altruism.com/r/main/ea/bq/ideas_for_new_experimental_ea_projects_you_could/

We are currently recruiting new members for under £500 each on average. The marginal cost is going to be higher, but my qualitative impression given the methods we are using is that it won't be that much higher.

Comment author: Larks 19 December 2014 07:39:05PM 0 points [-]

Hire a Research Director who would spend most of their time absorbing and communicating the evidence for our and GiveWell's recommended charities in order to i) drive up membership through talks, media, etc ii) drive more of our members' donations to our top recommended charities.

The research director would not actually be directing research into which charity was best?

Comment author: Robert_Wiblin 23 December 2014 03:22:59PM 0 points [-]

They would be making these decisions but would mostly be relying on primary data collected by others. GiveWell is producing so much information these days that this seems a better way to contribute.

This could be different if we hired someone who was better suited to doing charity evaluations from scratch themselves.