= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Singularity Institute $100K Challenge Grant / 2009 Donations Reminder
In case you missed the notice at the SIAI Blog, the Singularity Institute's next Challenge Grant is now running - $100,000 of matching funds for all donations until February 28th, 2010. If you want your donation to be tax-deductible in the U.S. for 2009, donations postmarked by December 31st will be counted for this tax year.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (13)
I think the Methuselah Foundation's credit card idea might also be a good way to receive donations without people actively donating money. Probably also buys more warm fuzzies per dollar, since you can feel good every time you use your credit card.
I suspect that's not a good thing, not something an SIAI supporter deserves, and certainly not something that encourages rational decision-making which I'd prefer SIAI to encourage on general principle.
Having said that, if they did it I'd probably get one.
Agreed. And I think it's important to consider just how small 1% really is. I doubt the fuzzies associated with using the credit card would actually be as small as 1% of the fuzzies associated with a 100% donation -- fuzzies just don't have high enough resolution. So I would fear, a la scope insensitivity, people getting more fuzzies from the credit card than are actually deserved from the donation. If that's necessary in order for the fuzzies to exceed a threshold for carrying out the donation, so be it; but usually the problem is in the other direction: People get too many fuzzies from doing too little and so end up not doing enough.
I would as well. I've been looking for ways to brand / affiliate myself with SIAI, and there does not seem to be much available beyond the t-shirt.
If you expect the emotion to be appropriate to the truth of the situation, then it's a good thing to have that emotion.
My problem isn't in giving people fuzzies as a reward for them giving SIAI 1% of something.
My problem's with this adding to people's already super-stimulated-by-clever-marketers set of psychological rewards and excuses-to-self for running up enormous credit card bills buying stuff they don't need with money that could be put to better use by, say, giving SIAI more than 1% of something.
It could also be seen as a kind of rational precommitment - if you know that you want to donate to the SIAI, but can never muster the effort to get it done, this would be a good thing to do. Feeling good after using your credit card is just a bonus.
I think this would be the right way to think about it; as a willpower hack.
If you don't have a problem donating right now, better just donate the amount you want to give without things like credit cards and such. But if you want to donate but aren't doing it, this might help (though it would probably be best to work directly on the problem first).
Those confident in their willpower can get a credit card with 2% cash back rebate and just commit to donating the rebate. Methuselah Foundation's card only gives a 1% donation.
An interesting corollary: you can use that credit card to donate to the SIAI and still receive the cash back, effectively making your donation 2% larger, or hacking your willpower in a similar way as that described by Bo102010, but this time by reducing the cost of your donation.
What grant project listed there will produce the most utilons?
My first guess would be the General Fund, as SIAI employees would then be free to choose the topics they feel are most effective at achieving their goals, and they benefit from the most motivation and knowledge of the topics at hand.
However, they have insider views, which may skew their interpretation of the value some projects will produce. It also appears they want to signal that they will accept guidance from outside in the form of donations to specific projects, or are attempting to solicit donations from people who otherwise would not have donated had they not known where their money was going.
The latter doesn't appear to be working very well considering the low dollar figure of donations outside the general fund, and may in fact prove discouraging to those few who attempted to fund their pet project. If this is true, then I would suggest only allowing donations to specific projects as a special case.
I am the kind of donor who is much more motivated to give by seeing what specific projects are on offer. The reason boils down to the fact that I have slightly different values (namely, hedonistic utilitarianism focused on suffering) than the average of the SIAI decision-makers and so want to impose those values as much as I can.
Regarding the last point, at the very least SIAI would be better off not advertising that several projects are partially funded to the tune of $5 out of thousands. It doesn't exactly motivate one to open up his own wallet for a similar small donation.
If you need to keep contributors updated on the extent to which their projects have received funding, perhaps do so privately by email on request?