In the field where you can leave a comment after voting it says the comment will be copied here but not who you voted for, probably some people just missed that info though.

How come LTFF isn't in the donation election? Maybe it is too late to be added now though.

How does LTFF relate to https://www.airiskfund.com/about?

I am confused given the big overlap in people and scope. 

Why do you think tactical voting is good/should be allowed? (I haven't thought about it much myself, I just have a vague sense that it often seen as bad.)

I agree these sound like great (though of course high-risk) opportunities, but find myself confused: why are such things not already being funded?

My understanding is that Good Ventures is moving away from some such areas. But what about e.g. the EA Animal Welfare Fund or other EA funders? I don't know much about animal welfare funding, so on face value I am pretty convinced these seem worth funding, but I am worried I am missing something if more sensible/knowledgeable people aren't already funding them. (Though deferring too much to other funders could create too much group-think.)

I would also be interested in your thoughts on @taoburga's push back here. (Tao, I think I have a higher credence than you that Pause advocacy is net positive, but I agree it is messy and non-obvious.)

Could you spell out why you think this information would be super valuable? I assume something like you would worry about Jaan's COIs and think his philanthropy would be worse/less trustworthy?

On Pauses

• If the US AI industry slowed down, but the rest of the world didn't, how good or bad would this be? How could we avoid adverse selection where countries that don't pause are presumably going to be less interested in safety all else equal?
• In general, are there any notable updates/things you've changed your mind about/relevant things changing in the world since you wrote  https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Y4SaFM5LfsZzbnymu/the-case-for-ai-safety-advocacy-to-the-public?

(As you note much of the value may come from your advocacy making more 'mainstream' policies more palatable, in which case the specifics of Pause itself matter less, but are still good to think about.)

Adverse selection

• What did SFF or the funders you applied to or talked to say (insofar as you know/are allowed to share)?

I am thinking a bit about adverse selection in longtermist grantmaking and how there are pros and cons to having many possible funders. Someone else not funding you could be evidence I/others shouldn’t either, but conversely updating too much on what a small number of grantmakers think could lead to missing lots of great opportunities as a community.

Fundraising scenarios

• What will likely happen with different levels of fundraising success, e.g. if you raise less than the target how do you scale down, if you raise more, how do you scale up?

A comment not a question (but feel free to respond): let's imagine Pause AI US doesn't get much funding and the org dies, but then in two years someone wants to start something similar - this would seem quite inefficient and bad. Or conversely that Pause AI US get's lots of funding and hires more people, and then funding dries up in a year and they need to shrink. My guess is there is an asymmetry where an org shrinking for lack of funding is more bad than growing with extra funding, which I suppose leans towards growing slower with a larger runway, but not sure about this.