Note: I’m writing this in a personal capacity; all views are my own
A couple I’m close with intend to donate at least half of their assets over their lifetime. Currently, they are most excited about GiveWell, pretty excited about animal welfare opportunities, and not excited about AI safety giving. They have a preference for giving a pretty similar amount every year.
By many EA’s lights, this couple’s preferences are far out of line with their comparative advantage as donors in the EA movement. Their comparative advantages include that:
They cannot “make deals” with other donors to swap donations. This would be illegal in the case of political giving, and may be against the spirit of AI safety groups’ policies around impartiality in other cases. If these deals were written in an enforceable contract, they may also violate Donative Intent.
Giving is a deeply personal choice. It is wonderful that this couple is excited about effective giving and so generous with their resources. I write this post not to claim that certain causes are better than others, but to share a reflection that comparative advantages are real. Right now, donors in positions like this couple have high-leverage opportunities that may exceed the cost-effectiveness of what institutions or AI company staff can give next year by a factor of 10 or more. To learn more, you can check out this blurb on an AI safety donation opportunity recommended by Coefficient Giving staff and sign up to receive opportunities from