> More than just being annoying, unsolicited outreach suggests you don’t respect boundaries, which is disqualifying for someone deciding whether to trust you with their money.
This also has negative effects for beyond just the person you have approached abrasively. Anthropic employees talk to each other about inbound they receive! So if you're particularly annoying, you'll not just disqualify yourself from that person but also become known to others as annoying and worth ignoring.
> I’m locked out, so why shouldn’t I just email them anyway?
I think in practice people are just not that locked out of reaching Anthropic staff.
Being legibly excellent can and should apply to just being public about that information, i.e. post it on your website, make a substack, post to the EA Forum, LessWrong etc.
You should also be reachable, i.e. give people a way to contact you that isn't really hard to hunt down from the good public information you're putting out, and isn't annoying/complex to use.
People probably underrate the extent to which being publicly legible + accessible can work to get you considered and generate leads. Of course, this doesn't mean you get funded - you might still be a mismatch for what people are looking for/interested in. But you do stand a much better shot.
(Bonus: it also means that if you do ever get an in, you have something you're immediately able to share with the person, rather than letting that lead go cold!)
---
Finally, another thing that should be obvious but (appears) isn't: Anthropic employees are generally busy folk with little spare time, possibly the worst pitch to them is "can we set up a call to discuss with very little by way of concrete details". The second worst pitch is "here is some Claude slop / half baked poorly thought through plan, give me money". The third worst pitch is "consider engaging with this extremely long resource e.g. read my book, then give me money".
Also, while AI is kinda bad at writing, probably all communications you intend to go to high-value donors should be thought through carefully by hand and written by hand. You should then get Claude to roast your writing, and check for obvious flaws/problems. But AI slop will turn people off very quickly.
I’ve got some advice. If you want to give your tainted money you should give it anonymously— otherwise people should assume you intend to influence what the charity does in favor of your AI company.
I also advise any charity that cares about control over their mission and their integrity to adopt a policy similar to PauseAI US of not accepting money from the AI industry.
Yes, that entire space is pulling punches on Anthropic in hopes of getting their money. The mere possibility that an Anthropic millionaire would donate to AMF— something you are suggesting in this post— is laundering the image of Anthropic and justifying what they do. It makes Anthropic the de facto leader of Effective Altruism.
In case you’re wondering, yes, you are part of this laundering. If your clients really want to AMF to have the money without it being an indulgence/pass for Anthropic, they’ll do it anonymously.
Reminds me of how thin the line between agency and antisocial behavior is. A lot of popular agentic behaviors (cold emails/caking, asking people for favors, etc.) seem to require some level of ask-culture assuredness that not everyone is comfortable with. I find it quite telling how telling people "it's disrespectful of Anthropic employees' time and boundaries" is not enough, even for a generally well-meaning EA audience (though I understand where they're coming from, as a fellow fundraiser!)
> More than just being annoying, unsolicited outreach suggests you don’t respect boundaries, which is disqualifying for someone deciding whether to trust you with their money.
This also has negative effects for beyond just the person you have approached abrasively. Anthropic employees talk to each other about inbound they receive! So if you're particularly annoying, you'll not just disqualify yourself from that person but also become known to others as annoying and worth ignoring.
> I’m locked out, so why shouldn’t I just email them anyway?
I think in practice people are just not that locked out of reaching Anthropic staff.
Being legibly excellent can and should apply to just being public about that information, i.e. post it on your website, make a substack, post to the EA Forum, LessWrong etc.
You should also be reachable, i.e. give people a way to contact you that isn't really hard to hunt down from the good public information you're putting out, and isn't annoying/complex to use.
People probably underrate the extent to which being publicly legible + accessible can work to get you considered and generate leads. Of course, this doesn't mean you get funded - you might still be a mismatch for what people are looking for/interested in. But you do stand a much better shot.
(Bonus: it also means that if you do ever get an in, you have something you're immediately able to share with the person, rather than letting that lead go cold!)
---
Finally, another thing that should be obvious but (appears) isn't: Anthropic employees are generally busy folk with little spare time, possibly the worst pitch to them is "can we set up a call to discuss with very little by way of concrete details". The second worst pitch is "here is some Claude slop / half baked poorly thought through plan, give me money". The third worst pitch is "consider engaging with this extremely long resource e.g. read my book, then give me money".
Also, while AI is kinda bad at writing, probably all communications you intend to go to high-value donors should be thought through carefully by hand and written by hand. You should then get Claude to roast your writing, and check for obvious flaws/problems. But AI slop will turn people off very quickly.
Big +1 to all of this
I’ve got some advice. If you want to give your tainted money you should give it anonymously— otherwise people should assume you intend to influence what the charity does in favor of your AI company.
I also advise any charity that cares about control over their mission and their integrity to adopt a policy similar to PauseAI US of not accepting money from the AI industry.
Interesting take. You think a donation to provide anti-malaria bednets is trying to favour an AI company?
Yes, that entire space is pulling punches on Anthropic in hopes of getting their money. The mere possibility that an Anthropic millionaire would donate to AMF— something you are suggesting in this post— is laundering the image of Anthropic and justifying what they do. It makes Anthropic the de facto leader of Effective Altruism.
In case you’re wondering, yes, you are part of this laundering. If your clients really want to AMF to have the money without it being an indulgence/pass for Anthropic, they’ll do it anonymously.
I'm about as sure as I can be that that isn't why PauseAI isn't taking donations from AI wealth.
Why do you think it is?
Reminds me of how thin the line between agency and antisocial behavior is. A lot of popular agentic behaviors (cold emails/caking, asking people for favors, etc.) seem to require some level of ask-culture assuredness that not everyone is comfortable with. I find it quite telling how telling people "it's disrespectful of Anthropic employees' time and boundaries" is not enough, even for a generally well-meaning EA audience (though I understand where they're coming from, as a fellow fundraiser!)
Yes, true. It's interesting to me that even quite aligned people have said "so what?" in response to this.