People who prioritize x-risk often disregard animal welfare (or the welfare of non-human beings, whatever shape those beings might take in the future). ... This isn't universally true—I know some people who care about animals but still prioritize x-risk.

For what it's worth this hasn't been my experience: most of the people I know personally who are working on x-risk (where I know their animal views) think animal welfare is quite important. And for the broader sample where I just know diet the majority are at least vegetarian.

Thanks for trying this!

Reviewing its judgements:

• I think YIMBY is not very left or right. Here's how Claude put it:

  JK: Where does the YIMBY movement fall on the left-right spectrum in the US? The YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement tends to fall on the center-left to center-right of the political spectrum in the US. YIMBYs generally support increasing housing supply and density to address housing affordability, which aligns with liberal/progressive goals. However, their support for market-based solutions and property rights puts them at odds with some further left positions. Overall, YIMBY is considered a centrist or "third way" approach to housing and urban development issues.

• I don't know much about the CHAI or ASG, but given that they were founded by politicians on the US left it seems reasonable to guess they're left of center. Like, I think if OP were recommending grants to equivalent international orgs founded by US right politicians we'd count that the other way? Though I think "political think tank or organization within the United States" doesn't really apply.

• It seems like it thinks animal advocacy and global health are left coded, which on one hand isn't totally wrong (I expect global health and animal advocates to be pretty left on average), but on the other isn't really what we're trying to get at here.

Since the GPT-o1-preview response reads to me as "these grants don't look politically coded" I'd be curious if you'd also get a similar response to:

Here is a spreadsheet of all of Open Philanthropy's grants since January 2024. Could you identify whether any of them might meaningfully constitute a grant to a "left of center" political think tank or organization within the United States?

I really appreciate you writing up the Voting Norms section! Making it clear when you see "tactical" participation as beneficial vs harmful is very helpful.

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

"Topping up" OP grants does reasonably well in this scenario, no?

While I think this piece is right in some sense, seeing it written out clearly it feels like there is something uncooperative and possibly destructive about it. To take the portfolio management case:

1. Why do the other fund managers prefer 100% stocks? Is this a thoughtful decision you are unthinkingly countering?

2. Each fund manager gets better outcomes if they keep their allocation secret from others.

I think I'm most worried about (2): it would be bad if OP made their grants secret or individuals lied about their funding allocation in EA surveys.

Tweaking the fund manager scenario to be a bit more stark:

• There are 100 fund managers

• 50 of them prefer fully stocks, 50 prefer an even split between stocks and bonds

• If they each decide individually you'd get an overall allocation of 75% stocks and 25% bonds.

• If instead they all are fully following the lessons of this post, the ones that prefer bonds go 100% bonds, and the overall allocation is 50% stocks and 50% bonds.

It feels to me that the 75-25 outcome is essentially the right one, if the two groups are equally likely to be correct. On the other hand, the adversarial 50-50 outcome is one group getting everything they want.

Note that I don't think this is an issue with other groups covering the gaps left by the recent OP shift away from some areas. It's not that OP thought that those areas should receive less funding, but that GV wanted to pick their battles. In that case, external groups that do accept the case for funding responding by supporting work in these areas seems fine and good. Which Moskovitz confirms: "I'm explicitly pro-funding by others" And: "I'd much prefer to just see someone who actually feels strongly about that take the wheel."

(This also reminds me about the perpetual debate about whether you should vote things on the Forum up/down directionally vs based on how close the vote total currently is to where you think it should be.)

I don't think of putting a small orange diamond only in my EA Forum username as targeting EAs first, but instead that I want to communicate differently with different audiences?

On the Forum mostly people know what the diamond is, and putting it in my username helps communicate that pledging is normal and common.

Elsewhere, I think it would work more as you describe, as a potential conversation starter and an opportunity to introduce people to effective giving. But because of the downsides I describe in the post, in other environments I prefer to do this in words. This also works better as I advocate for more different things: I can write some posts advocating effective giving, other posts advocating letting people build more housing, etc.

I do think that if I were more shy and less willing to discuss effective giving (and if I didn't have a range of other things I was advocating for) putting a diamond in my general social media profiles would make more sense.

Good post, thanks for writing it!

A quibble:

we should have different expectations for a 20-person organization with a $1 million budget than a 2-person $100,000 budget organization.

I know this is a sketch, but even if 100% of costs are labor both of these come out to fully-loaded costs of $50k/employee which seems quite low to me?

As someone who has raised funds from larger funders and is currently considering participating in marginal funding week, I don't think that would work very well:

• Our main funders have a lot of context on our work, and so our grant applications are missing a lot of information that a typical Forum reader would need. This includes basic stuff like " what problem are you trying to solve?"

• Because we have engaged with these funders previously, portions of a funding requests can be discussion of specific issues they have previously raised, which might be pretty in the weeds for a Forum reader and require extra context.

• There is a lot of information you can share in a private grant request that you can't make public. For example, specific quotes you've received from potential partners on pricing, some kinds of strategic planning, potential partnership opportunities, or frank assessments of the capabilities of other organizations.

• Writing for public consumption requires more attention to how a wide range of potential readers, including both low context Forum readers and potential partners, would interpret things.

I was specifically asking (and am still wondering) whether you stand by every individual point in your original post, such that it would be worth it for me to write a point-by-point response.

(Sometimes when people give high-level instructions to an LLM which results in output where they're willing to stand by the general message, but some of the specific claims aren't actually what they believe. The same thing can also happen when hiring people: if I was trying to deeply engage with a company on one of their policies it wouldn't be productive to write a point-by-point response to an answer I'd received from a first-line support representative.)