It seems like, from the chart in the appendix, that more active outreach sources produce higher-engagement EAs. Is this actually true, or does it reflect a confounder (such as age)? If true, it seems very surprising; I would have expected that people who sought out EA on their own would be the most engaged, because they want something from EA specifically. Maybe this has something to do with how engagement was measured (i.e. it seems high on sources that active outreach tries to get people to do, like contact with the EA community, rather than EA-endorsed behaviors like charitable donations)

My rough sense is that one reason for EA's historical lack of focus on systemic change is that it's really hard to convert money to systemic change (difficult to measure effectiveness, hard to coördinate on optimal approach, etc.). On the other hand, I do think that this leads to an undervaluing of careers that work in systemic change (and important considerations that cross cause areas, since they're also hard to donate to). This might not be true if you have AI timelines too short for systemic changes to come into being.

Not super confident about this, though. Feel free to try to change my mind.

There's probably something that I'm missing here, but:

• Given that the dangerous AI capabilities are generally stated to emerge from general-purpose and agentic AI models, why don't people try to shift AI investment into narrower AI systems? Or try to specifically regulate those systems?

Possible reasons: 

• This is harder than it sounds
• General-purpose and agentic systems are inevitably going to outcompete other systems
• People are trying to do this, and I just haven't noticed, because I'm not really an AI person
• Something else

Which is it?

This is an understandable point to leave out, but one issue with the portfolio analogy is that, as far as I can tell, it assumes all "EA" money is basically the same. However, big donors might have advantages in certain areas, for instance if a project is hard to evaluate without extensive consultation with experts, or if a project can only be successful if it has a large and guaranteed funding stream. As such, I'm not sure it holds that, if somebody thinks Open Phil is underinvesting in longtermism compared to the ideal allocation, then they should give to longtermist charities- the opportunities available to Open Phil might be significantly stronger than the ones available to donors, especially ones who don't have a technical background in the area.

I'll try to write a longer comment later, but right now I'm uncertain but lean towards global health because of some combination of the following:
1. I suspect negative lives are either rare or nonexistent, which makes it harder to avoid logic-of-the-larder-type arguments

2. I'm more uncertain about this, but I lean towards non-hedonic forms of consequentialism (RP parliament tool confirms that this generally lowers returns to animals)

3. Mostly based on the above, I think many moral weights for animals are too high

I'm also not sure if the 100 million would go to my preferred animal welfare causes or the EA community's preferred animal welfare causes or maybe the average person's preferred animal welfare causes. This matters less for my guesses about the impact of health and development funding.

Thank you for providing additional context!

Both my state senator and my state representative have responded to say that they'll take a look at it. It's non-commital, but it still shows how easy it is to contact these people.

Do you like SB 1047, the California AI bill? Do you live outside the state of California? If you answered "yes" to both these questions, you can e-mail your state legislators and urge them to adopt a similar bill for your state. I've done this and am currently awaiting a response; it really wasn't that difficult. All it takes is a few links to good news articles or opinions about the bill and a paragraph or two summarizing what it does and why you care about it. You don't have to be an expert on every provision of the bill, nor do you have to have a group of people backing you. It's not nothing, but at least for me it was a lot easier than it sounded like it would be. I'll keep y'all updated on if I get a response.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense!

I'm a bit confused about how you get that children that just had severe malaria cases are a good proxy for lives saved with seasonal malaria chloroprevention.

1. Your page on SMC says that it works by reducing the number of malaria cases, and consequently reducing the number of deaths, rather than by making malaria cases milder.
2. Thus we'd expect that, for a child whose life was saved with SMC, the impact of receent malaria cases on their health would be nonexistent.
3. But this is implying that they have recently had a severe malaria case, which seems like it wouldn't be true.

Am I misinterpreting something either here or on the SMC page? Or is it really being used as a proxy for sickliness in general? In that case, why are you only looking at estimates from children who suffered severe malaria cases, and not ones with other negative health events?