Well done, it's super cool to see everything you guys have achieved this year. One thing I was surprised by is that EAGxs are almost three times cheaper than EAGs while having a slightly higher likelihood to recommend. I assume part of this is because EAGs are typically held in more expensive areas, but I'd be surprised if that explained all of it. Are there any other factors that explain the cost difference?

[Promise this is not a scam] Sign up to receive a free $50 charity gift card from a rich person

Every year, for the past few years, famous rich person Ray Dalio has given away 20,000 $50 gift cards. And he is doing it again this year. These can be given any of over 1.8 million US registered charities, which includes plenty of EA charities

Here's an announcement post from Ray Dalio's instagram for verification

Register here to receive notification when the gift cards become available.

Great post. I'm wondering if you could expand on this statement?

Additionally, we have a higher tolerance for PR risks than most, and are thus able to fund a broader range of projects with higher expected impact.

Could you provide examples of grants with PR risks (hypothetical or real) that LTFF would fund but OpenPhil wouldn't?

In theory, organizations with ~2x the budget should produce about ~2x the output. There are, of course, reasons in practice to believe that output does not scale quite so linearly with increases in resources. However, these reasons crucially fall on both sides of our possible expectations, suggesting a linear increase in outputs is a reasonable base expectation.

I’d phrase this section a little differently. I think as a prior you should assume that charities become less cost-effective as they scale. However, the organisations that do grow should be the ones with above-average cost-effectiveness for their size. So even if a charity is less cost-effective than when it was smaller, if funders properly consider size, an average large charity should be equally cost-effective to an average small charity.

AI experts have said in polls that building AGI carries a 14-30% chance of causing human extinction!

My colleague took the median number of 14% from the latest AI Impacts survey

FWIW I believe the median value from the linked survey is 5%. The only relevant place where 14% shows up is that it is the mean probability researchers place on high-level machine intelligence being extremely bad for humanity. The median probability for the same answer is 5% and the median answer to the more specific question "What probability do you put on future AI advances causing human extinction or similarly permanent and severe disempowerment of the human species?" is also 5%

No clue, tough question

They all convincingly answer questions that have been the focus of debate in empirical economics for decades.

I would not say this is true of the medical debt RCT. I think it tells us very little about situations where people have more normal types of debt and actually expect to repay it

I like Eliezer's tweet on this

Thanks for writing this. I found it really moving and admire your perseverance throughout the process

My impression is both that Rethink pays pretty decent salaries and that you guys find hiring additional researchers quite easy. Have you guys considered lowering your salaries? I know there are practical considerations that make this hard to do in the short-term but you could, say, offer lower salaries to new staff and give existing staff lower pay rises which would lower your staff costs over the medium term

Thanks so much, this is super informative. 

Do you know if the price premium for potassium chloride is due to some fundamental thing? Or is it just because it is a smaller market and could have the potential to significantly decline in price if it became more popular?