$83,934 was also paid in additional compensation to Eliezer for the completion of the Sequences. (It could also have been anadvance on the assembly of his book on rationality...the text is a tad vague.)
Eliezer’s base compensation increased 20% in 2008 and then 7.8% in 2009.
Personally I think this is pretty shocking and the worst thing I’ve ever learned about SIAI.
(And since it’s relevant when saying these kinds of things, I’ve donated to SIAI before.)
EDIT: False alarm, apparently there was no sequences bonus
It seems a little on the high side to me—and $180,000 (when you combine his salary and the Sequences money) in 2009 is ludicrous. I mean, if that’s what people want to spend their money on, fair enough, but it’s a big chunk of the total funds raised by SIAI that year. So when people talk about the marginal utility of donating a dollar to the SIAI, an equally valid way to phrase it might be “the marginal utility of increasing the salary of someone who earned $180,000 in 2009 by 28 cents”.
But I’m not wanting to dissuade anyone from spending their money if that’s what they want to spend it on...
So when people talk about the marginal utility of donating a dollar to the SIAI, an equally valid way to phrase it might be “the marginal utility of increasing the salary of someone who earned $180,000 in 2009 by 28 cents”.
Assuming marginal money is allocated proportional to existing spending, which is surely not the case. (Yes, the $180,000 figure would be unreasonable if true.)
They thought it wasn’t going to paying me $180K. Correctly. +1 epistemic point to everyone who expressed surprise at this nonfact, −1 point for hindsight bias to anyone who claimed not to be shocked by it.
Fair enough. I assumed that most of the money would be going on salary, so if an organisation with a small staff had a large income, it’d be paying high salaries. It’s one reason (of many) I’ve never donated.
So I’ve just made a $10 donation, partly to punish myself for my own biases, and partly to make some restitution for acting on those biases in a way which might have seemed insulting.
Personally I think this is pretty shocking and the worst thing I’ve ever learned about SIAI.
(And since it’s relevant when saying these kinds of things, I’ve donated to SIAI before.)
EDIT: False alarm, apparently there was no sequences bonus
Should’ve noticed your own confusion, that didn’t actually happen.
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/5fo/siai_fundraising/40v2
(Base compensation rates of increase sound about right, though.)
FWIW $95.5K doesn’t seem excessive to me.
It seems a little on the high side to me—and $180,000 (when you combine his salary and the Sequences money) in 2009 is ludicrous. I mean, if that’s what people want to spend their money on, fair enough, but it’s a big chunk of the total funds raised by SIAI that year. So when people talk about the marginal utility of donating a dollar to the SIAI, an equally valid way to phrase it might be “the marginal utility of increasing the salary of someone who earned $180,000 in 2009 by 28 cents”.
But I’m not wanting to dissuade anyone from spending their money if that’s what they want to spend it on...
Assuming marginal money is allocated proportional to existing spending, which is surely not the case. (Yes, the $180,000 figure would be unreasonable if true.)
Shockingly high or shockingly low?
Where did you think the money was going?!
They thought it wasn’t going to paying me $180K. Correctly. +1 epistemic point to everyone who expressed surprise at this nonfact, −1 point for hindsight bias to anyone who claimed not to be shocked by it.
Fair enough. I assumed that most of the money would be going on salary, so if an organisation with a small staff had a large income, it’d be paying high salaries. It’s one reason (of many) I’ve never donated. So I’ve just made a $10 donation, partly to punish myself for my own biases, and partly to make some restitution for acting on those biases in a way which might have seemed insulting.