Thanks for writing this. I found it helpful.

One question:

"People who have retired or partially retired [...] can join Giving What We Can and remain members for as long as they continue to donate at least 10% of their spending money (as defined above)."

Is the "10%" number here accurate? At all other locations where "spending money" is mentioned, the corresponding percentage is 1%.

Fantastic post! Thank you very much for writing it.

Personally I'd add the Foundational Research Institute, which has released a few AI safety-related papers in the last year:

• Suffering-focused AI safety: Why "fail-safe" measures might be our top intervention
• How Feasible is the Rapid Development of Artificial Superintelligence?
• Backup utility functions as a fail-safe AI technique

As well as a bunch of draft blog posts that will eventually be incorporated into a strategy paper trying to chart various possibilities for AI risk, somewhat similar to GCRI's "A Model of Pathways to Artificial Superintelligence Catastrophe for Risk and Decision Analysis" which you mentioned in your post.

If you ever edit that article, I suggest you rephrase this part:

"If you want to steal money, you rob banks, because that is where the money is. If you want to raise money to fund valuable services, it is natural to think about how to tax the very rich, because they hold a large and growing share of all income and wealth."

I don't know if that juxtaposition is intentional, but it all but implies "taxation is theft" and doesn't fit into an otherwise politically neutral piece.