I think it's good that he gave money to something more innovative than the Salvation Army or some such, but generally if you're taking the conservative approach to "world-saving" (working and donating), your donations don't have great leverage or relevance. It's why GM couldn't make Tesla...

How many times do they go into it thinking this and just end up with a bunch of cars and naming rights to a building at Harvard at best... We see it the vast majority of the time.

Well, I think a lot of people end up like that - but then I'd argue they're not really taking any approach (much less a conservative one) to "world-saving". They've switched their goals at that point!

Sure, but that's my argument. They go into it thinking this, but the system changes their goals. I'm sure politicians think this too going in, and then the ones left are the ones who can play the donations game.

Startup orgs (for- or non-profit) allow you to actually start serving people now, not later, and that gives you better insight into solving problems and picking them.

Yea, I see your point. But I'd just point out that even with the attrition from people changing their goals, society may still be better off with having outliers like Buffet and Gates. People like Buffett and Gates enable others to start off in public service, and fund people that have insight into solving problems and picking them.

We can't talk just about Buffett without considering reference classes. Before starting his career investing, Buffet didn't know he would do as well as he did.