Good point, I agree that ideally that would be the case, but my impression (from the outside) is that OP is somewhat capacity-constrained, especially for technical AI grantmaking? Which I think would mean if non-OP people feel like they can make useful grants now that could still be more valuable given the likelihood that OP scales up and gets more AI grantmaking in coming years. But all that is speculation, I haven't thought carefully about the value of donations over time, beyond deciding to not save all my donations for later for me personally.

I suppose it depends whether the counterfactual is the two parties to the bet donate the 10k to their preferred causes now, or donate the 10k inflation adjusted in 2029, or don't donate it at all. Insofar as we think donations now are better (especially for someone who has short AI timelines) there might be a big difference between the value of money now vs the value of money after (hypothetically) winning the bet.

Good on you all!

Does anyone know whether CE/AIM has looked into this, and if not it seems like they should? Great that you guys have already started something so now maybe there is no need to go via their incubation program, but conversely they might still have a significant value add in terms of networks + advice + funding. I'm not sure who the relevant CE person to ask would be.

Thanks for writing this up, I just looked back at the results of a generic blood test measuring many different things I did earlier in the year and I had a creatinine value of 0.82 (the reference range was given as 0.7-1.3).
I haven't looked through the literature you cited, do you happen to know if I am already in the healthy range whether it is still helpful to be supplementing, or if it is bad to go over 1.3 if I do supplement?

I agree that 5 (accepting OP-dominated balance sheets) seems like the best solution.

I think a different but related point is that an org that can fundraise outside of EA is that much more valuable than an org producing identical outputs but fundraising from within EA. The big example of this of course is GiveWell - using EA principles but getting money from a far wider set of people. Raising $1 from OP (and even more so other EA sources) has pretty direct opportunity costs for other high-impact projects, but raising $1 from someone else mainly trades off against that donor's consumption or their other donations which we (putatively) think are a lot less impactful.

EA Australia and LTFF. Reflections at https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7FufeFhDE7Fp9i3fr/five-years-of-donating

I found this a really clear and useful explanation (though I already had a decent idea how NAO worked)!

If ever you want to reach a broader audience, I think making an animated video based on this content, maybe with the help of Rational Animations or Kurtzgesagt, would work well.

Assuming a key inefficiency of the nasal swabs method is the labour costs of people collecting them, is the process straightforward enough that you could just set up an unmanned sample collection place where in a busy building somewhere people can just swab themselves and drop the sample in a chute or box or something? Hopefully post-Covid people are fairly familiar with nasal swabbing technique.

Thanks for sharing the raw data!

Interestingly, of the 44 people who ranked every charity, the candidates with most last-placed votes were: PauseAI = 10, VidaPlena = ARMoR = 5, Whylome = 4, SWP = AMF = Arthropoda = 3, ... . This is mostly just noise I'm guessing, except perhaps that it is some evidence PauseAI is unusually polarising and a surprisingly large minority of people think it is especially bad (net negative, perhaps). 

Also here is the distribution of how many candidates people ranked:

I am a bit surprised there were so many people who voted for none of the winning charities - I would have thought most people would have some preference between the top few candidates, and that if their favourite charity wasn't going to win they would prefer to still choose between the main contenders. Maybe people just voted once initially and then didn't update it based on which candidates had a chance of winning.

I think the main reason to update one's vote based on the results is if you voted number 1 for a charity that is first or second, but a charity you also quite like is e.g. fourth or fifth, then strategically switching to rank the latter first would make sense. But this was not the case for me.

Overall my guess is the live vote tallies adds to the excitement but doesn't actually contribute much epistemically?

yeah sure, lmk what you find out!