I feel pretty ok with a very mild and bounded commitment? Especially with an awareness that forcing yourself to be miserable is rarely the way to be just effective yourself. I think it's pretty valid for someone's college age self to say that impact does matter to them, and they do care about this, and don't want to totally forget about it even if it becomes inconvenient, so long as they avoid ways this is psychological even by light of those values

I've only upvoted Habryka , to reward good formatting

It seems that we're even afraid of them. I will never forget that just a week before I arrived at an org I was to be the manager of, they turned away an Economist reporter at their door...

Fwiw, I think being afraid of journalists is extremely healthy and correct, unless you really know what you're doing or have very good reason to believe they're friendly. The Economist is probably better than most, but I think being wary is still very reasonable.

Glad to hear it!

I commit to using my skills, time, and opportunities to maximize my ability to make a meaningful difference

I find the word maximise pretty scary here, for similar reasons to here. Analogous how GWWC is about giving 10%, a bounded amount, not "as much as you can possibly spare while surviving and earning money"

To me, taking a pledge to maximise seriously (especially in a naive conception where "I will get sick of this and break the pledge" or "I will burn out" aren't considerations) is a terrible idea, and I recommend that people take pledges with something more like "heavily prioritise" or "keep as one of my top prioritise" or "actually put a sincere, consistent effort into, eg by spending at least an hour per month reflecting on whether I'm having the impact I want". Of course, in practice, a pledge to maximise generally means one of those things, since people always have multiple priorities, but I like pledges to be something that could be realistically kept.

Thanks for sharing the list!

I notice most of these don't have arguments for why individual donations are better than OpenPhil just funding the org for now (beyond the implicit argument that diverse donor base is good maybe). I'm curious if any of them have good arguments there? Without it, it feels like a donor's money is just funging with OpenPhil's last dollar - this is great, but I strive to do better.

I appreciated the clear discussion of this in the AI governance section and find opportunities there particularly compelling

Thanks for clarifying! I somewhat disagree with your premises, but agree this is a reasonable position given your premises

Thanks for the post, it seems like you're doing valuable work!

I'm curious how you'd compare One Acre Fund's work to the baseline of just directly giving the farmers cash to spend as they see fit? And if you did this, do you expect they would spend it on the kind of things One Acre Fund is providing?

Based on this post, possible arguments I see:

• You believe that loans make the approach more efficient as money is often paid back
• You can provide expertise and teaching which is hard to purchase, or people may not value correctly

Thanks for the post! This seems broadly reasonable to me and I'm glad for the role LTFF plays in the ecosystem, you're my default place to donate to if I don't find a great specific opportunity.

I'm curious how you see your early career/transition stuff (including MATS) compared to OpenPhil's early career/transition grant making? In theory, it seems to me like that should ideally be mostly left to OpenPhil, and LTFF be left to explore stuff OpenPhil is unwilling to fund, or otherwise to LTFF's comparative advantage (eg speed maybe?)

Is there a difference in philosophy, setup, approach etc between the two funds?