This question was also discussed in this other forum post, and probably in some other posts that I can’t find. Why Brain Drain Isn't Something We Should Worry About
Thanks Julia for writing this. It’s correct all the way around.
I can’t help but feel though that there is something a little mean-spirited in targeting those donating to Notre Dame, the opera, etc. There is a common and (in my opinion) somewhat toxic pattern where if someone spends their money on yachts, mansions, etc., then nobody complains but as soon as they do something even a little bit public spirited then all of a sudden everyone feels free to criticize. Like, we can have plenty of objections to MacKenzie Scott’s philanthropic choices, but shouldn’t Jeff Bezos get at least as much commentary for his non-philanthropic choices?
Here’s a summary of UK tax treatment of charitable donations. As I understand it, donations are sometime deductible, and sometimes eligible for gift aid, but never both.
GWWC has a somewhat complicated treatment of gift aid; you can count gift aid towards your pledge, but
If you are counting Gift Aid towards your pledge it is recommended to calculate your pledge amount based on your pre-tax income. If you are not claiming Gift Aid or any tax benefit then it is recommended to calculate your pledge amount based on your post-tax income.
The evidence is quite strong. You can most likely get more detail than you ever wanted from the GiveWell review.
What would humans have to offer AIs for trade in this scenario, where there are "more competitive machine alternatives to humans in almost all societal functions"?
What do these words even mean in an ASI context? If humans are relatively disempowered, this would also presumably extend to the use of force and legal contexts.