First great job getting other funders on board here I love that. I've got a coupke of queries here for things that I didn't write understand

"We also think our housing policy work clears our internal bar for impact. Our current internal valuation on a marginal housing unit in a highly constrained metro area in the US is just over $400k (so a grant would be above the bar if we think it causes a new unit in expectation for $200)"

 I don't understand what this means, is there a report or something you could link to which explains it?

Also I read the report you linked on R and D where it didn't clear the funding bar. That said 45x, you were pushing that up to 76x

 "In a highly stylized calculation, the social returns to marginal R&D are high, but typically not as high as the returns in some other areas we’re interested in (e.g. cash transfers to those in absolute poverty). Measured in our units of impact (where “1X” is giving cash to someone earning $50k/year) I estimate the cost effectiveness of funding R&D is 45X. This is 45% the ROI from giving cash to someone earning $500/year, and 4.5% the GHW bar for funding. More."

I understand that you think you can raise efficiency of certain types of R@D, but getting from 70x to 2100x means you would have to 30x the efficiency. I struggle to understand how that would be likely again any pointers here? 

Thanks I absolutely love this, and would be willing to do this same thing with the same ratio with half the size of the donation (2500) - I just don't have much money lol. I would also be willing to use a 5 billion global population threshold, although I doubt that makes much difference - if we go down to 5 billion we probably go down to 1...

I don't really consider it a wager as such, more a donation trade or something (I'm sure others can think of a better name) 

If I can help make AI Doom .000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent less likely while getting more return than market growth to the charity of my choice, what's there not to love?

Quick question what do you mean by "inflation adjusted" on the 7500 exactly? 

Nice one

Yep when I  first saw it I assumed they meant

1. Economic growth in low income countries and...

2. Innovation around technology that would help people in low income countries (medical innovation, fintech, drone deliveries etc.

   Then I saw it was all US based. 

   Again I don't mind at all if open Phil has a non EA d based, US based philanthropy arm, that might be what the donors want to do and might even be a good strategic move for PR reasons. But might be good to be more explicit about that.

    

Maybe they are predicting not for long... ;)

J/k

Thanks this is super helpful. I was trying to get my head around this announcement and that really helps.

Also to state the maybe obvious, you are allowed to ask whatever you want, and they are allowed to answer it or not! I for one appreciated the question in and of itself regardless of whether it gets answered

Thanks this is excellent. My wife who's a community organizer always said a small early win should be a almost non -negotiable aim for any advocacy group or organization. Like you said to boost motivation and self belief, increase hope and build confidence in the team and organization. Important stuff.

Love this Dylan and completely agree

I know we had a couple of disagreements about the content of your last post, but I really love the transparency and honesty here about your fundraising efforts and the unexpected increased cost of the facility@Anthony Kalulu, a rural farmer in eastern Uganda. It saddens me to say that level of transparancy quite unusula from my experience in Uganda so good on you for that.

Good on you and all the best with your development endeavors.

And like @MathiasKB🔸 said, advise against the crypto investment!

Also I suspect due to the style, and request in this post you might be downvoted quite a bit but dont be discouraged. This forum isn't an easy place!

Wow amazing 2022 article by the way. I never saw it at the time, it was before I was on the forum! 

After reading the thread I might fall marginally more on your side of the argument there, especially as inflation probably did contribute to the trump victory. But it is also yet another demonstration of how hard philanthropy gets, the higher level you get in politics or economics, with so much disagreement and uncertainty. There's just so much disagreement from experts on almost every major issue, so it's very hard to know on which side to push the money.

Taking a low percentage "hit based" approach on human welfare issues is one thing, but when it's super unclear even if you make that hit whether its positive or negative EV is where I start to think why not just take a punt on something deeply uncertain but never negative EV like shrimp instead.