Starting afresh seems like the right move here, and I think it's super commendable to share that you're re-committing. 

I have the same problem when it comes to end of year donations, and that prompted me to move to monthly donations (even if the idealized version of me would save accordingly and then make bigger donations more thoughtfully EOY).

Also:

In total, I’ve given about half of what I pledged since 2016.

This is still a lot of money, and a lot of good. Giving 5% of your income to charity for almost 10 years is a hugely generous and selfless thing to do :)

Cool! FYI when I open your home page on a large monitor, the "Log In" and "Blog" buttons overlap with each other (fine on small screens).

You might still want more on the margin, but I think this already happens a fair amount in EA:

• Fellowships are very common—the amount of freedom seems to vary but many (e.g., GovAI, historically FHI) involve giving fellows several months or up to a year to explore topics with limited oversight.
• EA funders often give unrestricted funding, often to individuals to pursue projects (see e.g. EA Funds grants, ACX grants, Manifund).
• Compared to other social/intellectual movements, EA is (still) well-funded. I expect many other non-profits / activist groups / academic institutions would be amazed at how many people in EA are paid well to think and write about relevant topics with a lot of freedom.

+1. Bumping my quick take listing where some of the people who participated in my EA uni group while I was there ended up (this is now considerably out of date, but AFAIK these people remain on paths that seem super impactful)

It looks the post in question is now tagged 'Community'.

That quote seems taken out of context. I don't know the passage (stagnation chapter?), but I don't think Will was making that point in relation to what kind of skillset the EA community needs.

This is a great post!

> ITN estimates sometimes consider broad versions of the problem when estimating importance and narrow versions when estimating total investment for the neglectedness factor (or otherwise exaggerate neglectedness), which inflates the overall results

I really like this framing. It isn't an ITN estimate, but a related claim I think I've seen a few times in EA spaces is:

"billions/trillions of dollars are being invested in AI development, but very few people are working on AI safety"

I think this claim: 

• Seems to ignore large swathes of work geared towards safety-adjacent things like robustness and reliability.
• Discounts other types of AI safety "investments" (e.g., public support, regulatory efforts).
• Smuggles in a version of "AI safety" that actually means something like "technical research focused on catastrophic risks motivated by a fairly specific worldview".

I still think technical AI safety research is probably neglected, and I expect there's an argument here that does hold up. I'd love to see a more thorough ITN on this.

By my count, barring Trajan House, it now appears that EA has officially been annexed from Oxford

Do you mean Oxford University? That could be right (though a little strong, I'm sure it has its sympathisers).  Noting that Oxford is still one of the cities (towns?) with the highest density of EAs in the world. People here are also very engaged (i.e. probably work in the space).