I think earning to give is the correct primary route to impact for the majority of current EAs and a major current shortcoming of the movement is failing to socially reward earning to give relative to pursuing direct work. I worry that this project, if successful, would push this dynamic further in the wrong direction. 

The short version of the argument is that excessive praise for 'direct work' has caused a lot of people who fail to secure direct work to feel un-valued and bounce off EA. Others have expanded their definitions of what counts as an impactful org to justify themselves according to the direct work standard when they could have more impact ETGing in a conventional job and donating to the very best existing orgs. 

All the EA-committed dollars in the world are a tiny drop in the ocean of the world's problems and it takes really incredible talent to leverage those dollars in a way that would be more effective than adding to them. Finding talent to do that is critical (I do this), but people need to be well calibrated and thoughtful in deciding whether and for how long to pursue particular direct work opportunities vs ETG. I think hurling (competing!) solemn pledges at them is not the way to make this happen.

For what it's worth, there used to be an 80k pledge along similar lines. They quietly dropped it several years ago, so you might want to find someone involved in that decision to try and understand why (I suspect and dimly remember that it was some combination of non-concreteness, and concerns about other-altruism-reduction effects).

I commit to using my skills, time, and opportunities to maximize my ability to make a meaningful difference

I find the word maximise pretty scary here, for similar reasons to here. Analogous how GWWC is about giving 10%, a bounded amount, not "as much as you can possibly spare while surviving and earning money"

To me, taking a pledge to maximise seriously (especially in a naive conception where "I will get sick of this and break the pledge" or "I will burn out" aren't considerations) is a terrible idea, and I recommend that people take pledges with something more like "heavily prioritise" or "keep as one of my top prioritise" or "actually put a sincere, consistent effort into, eg by spending at least an hour per month reflecting on whether I'm having the impact I want". Of course, in practice, a pledge to maximise generally means one of those things, since people always have multiple priorities, but I like pledges to be something that could be realistically kept.

My tentative take is that this is on-net bad, and should not be encouraged. I give this a 10/10 for good intent, but a 2/10 for planning and avoiding foreseeable issues, including the unilateralists curse, the likely object level impacts of the pledge, and the reputational and community impacts of promoting the idea.

It is not psychologically healthy to optimize or maximize your life towards a single goal, much less commit to doing so. That isn't the EA ideal. Promising to "maximize my ability to make a meaningful difference" is an unlimited and worryingly cult-like commitment, builds in no feedback from others who have a broader perspective about what is or is not important or useful. It implicitly requires pledgers to prioritize impact over personal health and psychological wellbeing. (The claim that it's usually the case that burnout reduces impact is a contingent one, and seems very likely to lead many people to overcommit and do damaging things.) It leads to unhealthy competitive dynamics, and excludes most people, especially the psychologically well adjusted.

I will contrast this to the giving pledge, which is very explicitly a partial pledge, requiring 10% of your income. This is achievable without extreme measures, or giving up having a normal life. The pledge was built via consultation with and advice from a variety of individuals, especially including those who were more experienced, which also seems to sharply contrast with this one.

I like this idea, the clear metrics, and the MVP style of execution. I wish more people would attempt projects on a small scale like this to see if they gain traction before, for example, fundraising $100k and launching a full organization.

This is such a compelling idea—thank you for putting it out there! Does the pledge commit me to pursuing high-impact work specifically, or could it also include earning to give if that turns out to be my best option for impact later down the line? 

I think a lot of commenters are taking the "maximize" bit too literally. EAs are a bit on the neurotic side and like to take things literally, but colloquially, people understand that maximize doesn't mean maximize at all other costs. I agree that maximization is perilous but in every day language, with which every day people we are trying to appeal to communicate, "maximize" doesn't mean to do so at all costs like maximizing a single function. When my basketball coach would tell me to score as many points as possible, I took it as a given he didn't think I should hold the referees and other team at gunpoint until they allowed me to score points easily or do any number of other ridiculous actions. When a friend tells me to come as early as I can, they don't mean for me to floor the gas pedal from my current location.

A pledge summed up in a single sentence isn't going to have all the caveats and asterisks that EAs like to have when they speak precisely.

I think you should explain in this post what the pledge people may take :-)

I am particularly interested in how to pledge more concrete. I have always thought that the 10% pledge is somewhat incomplete because it does not consider the career. However, I think it would be useful to make the career pledge more actionable.

FYI the School for Moral Ambition has a career pledge. Participants of their circle programme (like an intro fellowship but self-facilitated) are encouraged to take it at the end. AFAIK, over 100 people have taken it so far. Might be worth reaching out to them to see what they've learned? Niki might be a good person to contact. She manages the circle programme and was a volunteer at EA Netherlands before that.

Props for the initiative!

What names did you consider for the pledge? One con of the current name is that it could elicit some reactions like:

• "so you think you're better than others?"
• "how arrogant/naive to think you can know better than others what one should do"
• "why a comparative instead of a collaborative frame?"
• "saying someone has a better career than someone else is kind of like saying they're a better person, that's unfair"

It might be largely down to whether someone interprets better as "better than I might otherwise do" or "better than others' careers". Likely depends on culture too, for example I think here in Finland the above reactions could be more likely since people tend to value humbleness quite a bit.

Anyway I'm not too worried since the name has positives too, and you can always adapt the name based on how outreach goes if you do end up experimenting with it. 👍