Luke, thank you for everything you've done for GWWC and the world. 

I don’t think many people get to meet someone with such extraordinary levels of care, both for those far away in space/time, and loved ones nearby. While I was working at GWWC, Luke’s most common reason to take a day off was to help someone move house. Luke, your kindness, integrity and commitment are contagious — even with you no longer at the organization, those virtues will stay with GWWC in large part because of how you demonstrated them.

Here’s a graph of new 10% Pledgers since Luke joined GWWC.^[1]

1. ^{^}

   Courtesy of Claude… though my critical feedback for it is that it makes it look like 2024 hasn’t happened yet, and that Luke joined in 2019. Both false!

Unfortunately, I can't see that option — it just displays my email. 

Thanks for sharing this, and more importantly, for writing it. From my perspective, this is the best reporting on AI that I've seen. I've shared it with previously ultra-sceptical friends, and had an uncharacteristically positive response. 

Hi Vasco — not all organisations shared permission to have their name shared, but it includes many of the fundraising organisations on this list.

Thanks Vasco, this is good feedback.

To better reflect how your different recommendations are linked to particular worldviews, I think it would be good to change the name of your area/fund "global health and wellbeing" to "global human health and wellbeing"

We considered a wide variety of names, and after some deliberation (and a survey or two), we landed on "global health and wellbeing" because we think it is a good balance of accurate and compelling. I agree with some the limitations you outlined, and like your alternative suggestion, especially from a "Researcher's" point of view where I'm very focused on. I'll share this with the team, but I expect that there would be too much cost switch at this point. 

However, I wonder how much of your and Sjir's views are being driven by path dependence. [...] Given this, I worry you may hesitate to recommend interventions in animal welfare over human welfare even if you found it much more plausible that both areas should be assessed under the same (impartial welfarist) worldview.

It's a bit tricky to respond to this having not (at least yet) done an analysis comparing animal versus human interventions. But for if/when we do, I agree it would be important to be aware of the incentives you mentioned, and to avoid making decisions based on path dependencies rather than high quality research. More generally, a good part of our motivation for this project was to help create better incentives for the effective giving ecosystem. So we'd see coming to difficult decisions on cause-prioritisation, if we thought they were justified, as very much within the scope of our work and a way it could add value.

Hi Rebecca — we did not look into The Life You Can Save for this round. As shared here we only looked into the six evaluators/funds listed in this post, and in our "Why and how GWWC evaluates evaluators" we shared how we decided which evaluators to prioritise. It's too soon to say which evaluators we'll look into next, though we can share that our current inclination is that looking into Founders Pledge's research, and expanding the cause areas we include (like climate change, or "meta" work) is a particularly high priority. 

Thanks Nick! It was really illuminating for me personally to look under the hood of GW, and I'm glad you appreciated our summary of the work. 

In this round of evaluations, we only looked into Animal Charity Evaluators, GiveWell, Happier Lives Institute, EA Funds' Animal Welfare Fund and Long-Term Future Fund, and Longview's Emerging Challenges Fund. In future evaluations, we would like to look into Founders Pledge's work, climate change more generally, and other evaluators. It's too soon to commit to which, and in which order, just yet.

Also, did you evaluate GW's Top Charity Fund of All Grants Fund?

Jonas' reply is spot on here — we essentially looked into both and to GW more generally.

There is definitely substantial overlap between the four funds you listed; and especially on GWWC's fund and EA Funds'. In principle, it doesn't have to be this way:

• GWWC's Global Health and Wellbeing Fund could potentially grant based on evaluations other than GW (e.g., potentially from Founders Pledge, or Happier Lives Institute, etc., depending on how our subsequent evaluations go).
• EA Funds' Global Health and Development Fund could similarly appoint new advisors, or change its scope. But I can't speak on behalf of EA Funds!
• GW's Top Charities Fund and All Grants Fund do make different grants, with the latter having a wider scope, but there is overlap.  

Have you considered allocating the donations made to the GWWC Global Health and Wellbeing Fund to GW's funds?

We expect that in effect this will be what happens. That is, we expect GW to advise our fund as a proxy for the All Grants Fund. Operationally, it's better for us to directly grant to the organisations based on GW's advice (rather than, for example, sending the money to GW to regrant it) so that, among other reasons, charities can receive the money sooner. We already have this process setup for donations made to GW's funds on our platform. This means that, at least right now, giving to either the All Grants Fund, or our cause area fund, will have the same effect. But as above, this could change based on future evaluations of evaluators, which we see as a feature for donors who want to setup recurring donations to track our latest research.