I think that is extremely unlikely, they have a lot to lose as soon as it's confirmed that the archived data is not manipulated.

Also, from the page you cite:

we emphasize that these attacks can in most cases be launched only by the owners of particular domains.

So they would need to claim that you took control of a relevant domain as well.

But even if something like that happened, you could show that the archive has not been tampered (e.g. by linking the exact resource containing the information, or mentioning the "about this capture" tool that was added by the web archive to mitigate this)

I strongly agree that the benefits of sharing the evaluation greatly outweigh the risks, but I'm not sure if sharing the it relatively early is best

1. There is a risk of starting a draining back-and-forth which could block or massively delay publication. See e.g. Research Deprioritizing External Communication which was delayed by one year
2. It would cost more time for the org to review a very early draft and point out mistakes that would be fixed anyway
3. It could cause the org to take the evaluation less seriously, and be less likely to take action based on the feedback

I think the minimal version proposed by @Jason of just sending an advance copy a week or two in advance is an extremely low-cost policy that mitigates most of the risks and provides most of the benefits (but some limited back-and-forth would be ideal)

The original information is still archived, my understanding is that those attacks just inject other data that changes what is shown to the user, but as they mention it's easily detectable and the original information can still be recovered.

A bigger risk would be that the organization asks the archive to delete their data, but that would look very suspicious, and you could use multiple archives (e.g. https://archive.is/ )

As was mentioned by several commenters on your last article, I think it would be valuable to share your article with ACE or Sinergia Animal before publishing it here.

Sharing evaluations with the evaluated org before publishing would likely make your analyses both more useful and more accurate, I'm curious to know why you decided against this.

I agree that US policy is obviously very important, but

1. The 2024 US Election doesn't seem to have been close (unlike e.g. the 2000 one). I'm skeptical that EAs could have changed things that much, given that they couldn't cause relatively easier policy changes (e.g. SB 1047)
2. As you mentioned, Moskovitz & Tuna already were the largest democratic donors
3. They were a minority, but several EAs favoured Trump over Harris, so their efforts would partially cancel out
4. Politicizing EAs, or EA organizations, would have made them less effective after Trump's win and the whole "vibe shift", when collaborating with the current administration

generic US policy, especially focusing on long-term issues (like US governance, or US decisions on questions like Nuclear/bio/AI) might be a good use of EA funds.

I think it always has been? My sense is that lots of EA funds are already spent on US policy things, e.g. https://www.nti.org/analysis/ and https://www.governance.ai/research 

Update: the lottery has been drawn and the results are in! An anonymous donor won the right to recommend how to allocate $200k 

Congratulations to the winner and thanks to the 21 donors who collectively donated $108,577.65 this year

From here it seems that indeed «he focuses on the design of the company's Responsible Scaling Policy and other aspects of preparing for the possibility of highly advanced AI systems in the future.»

It seems that lots of people with all sorts of roles at AI companies have the formal role "member of technical staff"

I would take an even-odds bet that the total amount donated to charity out of Anthropic equity, excluding matches, is >$400m in 4 years time. 

If Anthropic doesn't lose >85% of its valuation (which can definitely happen) I would expect way more.

As mentioned above, each of its seven cofounders is likely to become worth >$500m, and I would expect many of them to donate significantly.

Anthropic is the go to example of "founded by EAs"

I find these kind of statements a bit weird. My sense is that it used to be true, but they don't necessarily identify themselves with the EA movement anymore: it's never mentioned in interviews, and when asked by journalists they explicitly deny it.

I would be surprised if the 3:1 match applied to founders as well. Also, I think 20% of employees donating 20% of their equity within the next 4 years is very optimistic.

My guess is that donations from Antrhopic/OpenAI will depend largely on what the founders decide to do with their money. Forbes estimates Altman and Daniela Amodei at ~$1B each, and Altman signed the Giving Pledge.

See also this article from Jan 8: 

At Anthropic’s new valuation, each of its seven founders — [...] — are set to become billionaires. Forbes estimates that each cofounder will continue to hold more than 2% of Anthropic’s equity each, meaning their net worths are at least $1.2 billion.

I don't think Forbes numbers are particularly reliable, and I think that there's a significant chance that Anthropic and/or OpenAI equity goes to 0; but in general, I expect founders to both have much more money than employees and be more inclined to donate significant parts of it (partly because of diminishing marginal returns of wealth)

OWID says that ~45% of the population in Uganda has access to electricity, and that it more than doubled in the past 10 years. Does this match your experience?