To rank interventions or causes as a whole (so not just making comparisons of outputs apples to apples), you need to have a moral framework. Unless you (1) believe there is an objectively correct moral framework and (2) trust that EA is both good at cost-benefit analysis and moral philosophy, I think you may be hoping for too much. 

I'm pretty sure the personal benefits of getting the flu vaccine for a male in their 20-30s is not much higher than the costs. Agree on the bike helmet thing though. 

I don't know unfortunately, basically just going off trusting the leadership to be cost effective plus they are in a really good position to influence policy/executive orders.

I haven't quite finished donating because waiting on a final input on whether rand actually needs funding but I expect my final donations to look more or less like below.  I don't really believe in spreading this amount of funding on the object level but it's more fun and allows me to tell my friends that I think these issues are all important. I gave about 10% of my income. 

RAND- earmarked for emerging risks
Chicago growth project (YIMBY/good governance PAC) 
ARI
Horizon 
rethink
ACE 
Givewell unrestricted 

I probably won't be donating again for at least a year or two because I left my trading job to start a startup—happy new year.
 

Yea I have no idea if they actually need money but if they still want to hire more people to the AI team wouldn't it be better to give the money to RAND to hire those policymakers rather than like the Americans for Responsible Innovation - which open phil currently recommends but is much less prestigious and I'm not sure if they are working side by side with legislators. The fact that open phil gave grants but doesn't currently recommend for individual donors makes me think you are right that they don't need money atm but it would be nice to be sure. 

Haven't seen anyone mention RAND as a possible best charity for AI stuff and I guess I'd like to throw their hat in the ring or at least invite people to tell me why I'm wrong. My core claims are approximately:

• Influencing the US (federal) government is probably one of the most scalable cost-effective routes for AI safety.
• Think tanks are one of the most cost-effective ways to influence the US government.
• The prestige of the think tank matters for getting into the room/influencing change.
• Rand is among the most prestigious think tank doing AI safety work.
• It's also probably the most value-aligned, given Jason Matheny is in charge.
• You can earmark donations to the catastrophic risks/emerging risks departments
  
  I'll add I have no idea if they need/have asked for marginal funding.
  
   

The get-out-of-RSP-free card

If I'm reading this correctly it seems quite vaguely written, so expecting them to pull this out literally whenever they want but maybe I'm overly skeptical. Bush invading Iraq vibes. 

do you feel confident about your moral philosophy?

adding on that wholefoods https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/quality-standards/statement-on-broiler-chicken-welfare
has made some commitments to switching breeds, we discussed this briefly at a Chicago EA meeting. I didn't get much info but they said that going and protesting/spreading the word to whole foods managers to switch breeds showed some success.  

No I don’t but effective altruism should not be a small movement. I think about 1/3 of all people could get on board. Applied utilitarianism should be a small movement, and probably not democratic. I’ll just write up a more coherent version of my vision and make a quick take or post though. I would agree democracy is not great for a small movement though I’m not expert.