Are you happy to share a short summary of the non-funding factors that contributed to this decision? All the best with whatever is next!

Just another +1 to Zach and Akash.

A related point, speaking for myself: The likelihood of me funding these projects based on descriptions if these are mainly to hype is lower, because I may not have the time and energy to evaluate how much they are hyped, and I don't know Manifund's track record well enough to defer. On the other hand, if I have reason to believe these are well-calibrated statements then I'm more likely to be happy to defer in future. Don't feel like you should change your approach based on one individual's preferences, but just thought this might be a useful data point.

The dashboard is neat!

Some questions about the AI safety related updates.
There are risks to associating AI safety work with the EA brand, as well as risks to non-AI portions of EA if the "Centre of Effective Altruism" moves towards more AI work. On risks to AI safety:

• What's CEA's comparative advantage in communicating AI safety efforts? I'd love to see some specific examples of positive coverage in the mainstream media that was due to CEA's efforts.
• What are CEA's plans in making sure the EA brand does not negatively affect AI safety efforts, either in community building, engaging policy makers, engaging the public, or risking exacerbating further politicization between AI safety and ethics folk?
• Which stakeholders in the AI safety space have you spoken to or have already planned to speak to about CEA's potential shift in strategic direction?

On risks to non-AI portions of EA:

• Which stakeholders outside of the AI safety space have you spoken to or have already planned to speak to about CEA's potential shift in strategic direction?
• If none, how are you modelling the negative impacts non-AI cause areas might suffer as a result, or EA groups who might move away from EA branding as a result when making this decision?
• How much AI safety work will CEA be doing before the team decides that the "Centre for Effective Altruism" is no longer the appropriate brand for its goals, or whether an offshoot/different organization is a better home for more AI safety heavy community building work?

Lastly, the linked quote of "list of things we are not focusing on" currently includes "cause-specific work (such as community building specifically for effective animal advocacy, AI safety, biosecurity, etc.)", which seems to be in tension somewhat with the AI related updates (e.g. AI safety group support). I'd love to see the website updated accordingly once the decision is finalized so this doesn't contribute to more miscommunication in future.

The salary of the content specialist is here.

It sounds like the 1.5 million does not include $ on the forum team or facilitators - what does the total spending/average salary look like if you include these groups?

Are you happy to share a rough breakdown for what you plan to spend the $3-6M?

It increasingly sounds like you are coming from a starting point of "there is no scheming" and looking for evidence to update.

But to be more explicit, you shouldn't start from "there is no scheming", because base rates would suggest that there is scheming that goes on ahead of time.

"Some" ranges from 2 or 3 people to every person but one. There's not much point debating a claim so vague.

If your intention is to work out whether OP means "2 or 3 people" or "every person but one" or anything in between, it would have been helpful to clarify.

The reason I say this is because it's common for people to ask innocuous questions with a more insidious subtext, and it's often hard to tell this from people asking when you are online.

One possible reading of your series of questions is that you're coming from a place where you are skeptical that this is happening, and you're asking OP to provide evidence for you to update. But most of this evidence is going to be anecdotal, so it's not going to be super helpful for you in terms of getting a rate. So I'm struggling to follow where your starting point is in terms of what you believe is happening in these communities, how you're reading into OP's claim, and what level of evidence you're expecting from OP in order to update.

Great! So based on evidence and reasoning, what is your credence that the following claim is true?

Some bad actors know this and will deliberately give a woman LSD/MDMA with the purpose of getting her in a vulnerable/altered state so that he can have sex with her, without making any of these motives explicit upfront.
 

And what is your credence that either of the following claims are true?

No bad actors will deliberately give a woman LSD/MDMA with the purpose of getting her in an altered state so he can have sex with her

Bad actors who want to do this will make their motives explicit upfront