[This comment is less important, and you may want to skip it]
Some places where my views differ from Linchās comment:
In my role with EAIF,~$750k of grants that I was primary investigator for have been approved. This was from ~10hrs/āweek of work over ~4 months. So thatās equivalent to (hopefully!) improving the allocation of ~$9m over a year of full-time work. Yet I think Iād go full-time Rethink rather than continue to be part-time EAIF, from next year onwards, if given the choice. This gives some indication of how valuable I think me working at Rethink full-time next year is, which then more weakly indicates (a) whatās true and (b) how valuable other people working at Rethink is. And it seems to suggest something notably higher than the 1-2M range.
There are complexities to all of this, which I can get into if people want, but I think that picture ends up roughly correct.
But note that this has a lot to do with my long-term career plans (with research management as plan A), rather than just comparing direct impact during 2022 alone.
Also note that my dollars moved at EAIF and my hours worked for EAIF have both been above average, I think, partly because Iāve been keen to take on extra things so I can learn more and because itās fun.
Also note that Iām very glad I did this term at EAIF, have strongly recommended other people apply to do a stint at EA Funds, and would definitely consider an extended term at EAIF if offered it (though I think Iād ultimately lean against).
Linchās comment could be (mis?)read as equating the value of adding 1 dollar to the pool of EA resources to the value of guiding 1 dollar towards a good donation target (rather than it going towards a net negative target, a less good target, or going nowhere for a while). But I think he doesnāt actually mean that (given that he uses 1-2M in one case and 2.2M in the other). And I think Iād (likewise?) say that the latter is probably better than the former, given that I think EA funders would be keen to spend much faster than they currently are if they had more vetting, ideas, strategic clarity, etc.
But I havenāt thought much about this, and it probably depends on lots of specifics (e.g. are you ājustā guiding a dollar that would be moved anyway to instead be moved to a 10% better opportunity, or are you suggesting a totally new intervention idea that someone can then active grantmake an org into existence to execute, or are you improving strategic clarity sufficiently to unlock money that would otherwise sit around due to fear of downside risks?). Not sure though.
I also havenāt tried to make any of the estimates Linch tried to make above. But I appreciate him having done so and acknowledge that that makes it easily to productively disagree with him than with my more vague statements!
Linchās comment could be (mis?)read as equating the value of adding 1 dollar to the pool of EA resources to the value of guiding 1 dollar towards a good donation target (rather than it going towards a net negative target, a less good target, or going nowhere for a while)
For what itās worth, I donāt think those two are the same thing, but I usually think of āimproving decision qualityā of situations that roughly looks like a funder wants to invest in $X in Y, we look at the evidence and suggest something like
a) best bets are Z charities/āinterventions in Y b) this isnāt worth investing for ABC reasons, or c) ambiguous, more research is needed
as some percentage improvement on $X in the first two cases, and I usually think of that percentage as less than 100%. Maybe 20-50%*? Depends on funder quality. So I donāt think āadding 1 dollar to the pool of EA resources to the value of guiding 1 dollar towards a good donation targetā are the same thing, but youāre implying >100% improvement and I usually think improvements are lower, especially in expectation. Keep in mind that thereās usually at least an additional grantmaker layer between donors and the people doing direct work, and we have to be careful to avoid double-counting (which I was maybe a bit sloppy at too but worth noting).
The other thing to note is that this ādecision qualityā approach already might inflate our importance at least a little (compared to a more natural question candidates might ask like at what $X amount should they be indifferent between working for us and earning-to-give for $X) because it implies that the cause prioritization of EA is already basically reasonable, and I donāt actually believe this, in either my research or my other career/ālife decisions.
A different tack here is a quick sanity check: maybe it has happened a few times before, but Iām not aware of any point that an RP employee was so confident about an intervention/ādonation opportunity that theyāve researched that they decided that the donation opportunity is a clearly better bet than RP. Obviously there are self-serving reasons/ābiases for this, but I basically think this is a directionally correct move from the POV of the universe.
* I need to check if how much I can share, but 20% is not the lowest number Iāve seen from other people at RP, at least when I talk about specific intervention reports.
Keep in mind that thereās usually at least an additional grantmaker layer between donors and the people doing direct work, and we have to be careful to avoid double-counting (which I was maybe a bit sloppy at too but worth noting).
Yeah, this is a good point that I think I hadnāt had saliently in mind, which feels a bit embarrassing.
I think the important, correct core of what I was saying there is just that āthe value of adding 1 dollar to the pool of EA resourcesā and āthe value of guiding 1 dollar towards a good donation target (rather than it going towards a net negative target, a less good target, or going nowhere for a while)ā are not necessarily the same, and plausibly actually differ a lot, and also the value of the latter thing will itself differ a lot depending on various specifics. I think itās way less clear which of the two things is bigger and by how much, and I guess Iād now back down from even my tentative claims above and instead mostly shrug.
(EDIT: I realised I should note that I have more reasons behind my originally stated views than I gave, basically related to my EAIF work. But I havenāt given those reasons here, and overall my views on this are pretty unstable and not super informed.)
I think the important, correct core of what I was saying there is just that āthe value of adding 1 dollar to the pool of EA resourcesā and āthe value of guiding 1 dollar towards a good donation target (rather than it going towards a net negative target, a less good target, or going nowhere for a while)ā are not necessarily the same
[This comment is less important, and you may want to skip it]
Some places where my views differ from Linchās comment:
In my role with EAIF,~$750k of grants that I was primary investigator for have been approved. This was from ~10hrs/āweek of work over ~4 months. So thatās equivalent to (hopefully!) improving the allocation of ~$9m over a year of full-time work. Yet I think Iād go full-time Rethink rather than continue to be part-time EAIF, from next year onwards, if given the choice. This gives some indication of how valuable I think me working at Rethink full-time next year is, which then more weakly indicates (a) whatās true and (b) how valuable other people working at Rethink is. And it seems to suggest something notably higher than the 1-2M range.
There are complexities to all of this, which I can get into if people want, but I think that picture ends up roughly correct.
But note that this has a lot to do with my long-term career plans (with research management as plan A), rather than just comparing direct impact during 2022 alone.
Also note that my dollars moved at EAIF and my hours worked for EAIF have both been above average, I think, partly because Iāve been keen to take on extra things so I can learn more and because itās fun.
Also note that Iām very glad I did this term at EAIF, have strongly recommended other people apply to do a stint at EA Funds, and would definitely consider an extended term at EAIF if offered it (though I think Iād ultimately lean against).
Linchās comment could be (mis?)read as equating the value of adding 1 dollar to the pool of EA resources to the value of guiding 1 dollar towards a good donation target (rather than it going towards a net negative target, a less good target, or going nowhere for a while). But I think he doesnāt actually mean that (given that he uses 1-2M in one case and 2.2M in the other). And I think Iād (likewise?) say that the latter is probably better than the former, given that I think EA funders would be keen to spend much faster than they currently are if they had more vetting, ideas, strategic clarity, etc.
But I havenāt thought much about this, and it probably depends on lots of specifics (e.g. are you ājustā guiding a dollar that would be moved anyway to instead be moved to a 10% better opportunity, or are you suggesting a totally new intervention idea that someone can then active grantmake an org into existence to execute, or are you improving strategic clarity sufficiently to unlock money that would otherwise sit around due to fear of downside risks?). Not sure though.
I also havenāt tried to make any of the estimates Linch tried to make above. But I appreciate him having done so and acknowledge that that makes it easily to productively disagree with him than with my more vague statements!
For what itās worth, I donāt think those two are the same thing, but I usually think of āimproving decision qualityā of situations that roughly looks like a funder wants to invest in $X in Y, we look at the evidence and suggest something like
as some percentage improvement on $X in the first two cases, and I usually think of that percentage as less than 100%. Maybe 20-50%*? Depends on funder quality. So I donāt think āadding 1 dollar to the pool of EA resources to the value of guiding 1 dollar towards a good donation targetā are the same thing, but youāre implying >100% improvement and I usually think improvements are lower, especially in expectation. Keep in mind that thereās usually at least an additional grantmaker layer between donors and the people doing direct work, and we have to be careful to avoid double-counting (which I was maybe a bit sloppy at too but worth noting).
The other thing to note is that this ādecision qualityā approach already might inflate our importance at least a little (compared to a more natural question candidates might ask like at what $X amount should they be indifferent between working for us and earning-to-give for $X) because it implies that the cause prioritization of EA is already basically reasonable, and I donāt actually believe this, in either my research or my other career/ālife decisions.
A different tack here is a quick sanity check: maybe it has happened a few times before, but Iām not aware of any point that an RP employee was so confident about an intervention/ādonation opportunity that theyāve researched that they decided that the donation opportunity is a clearly better bet than RP. Obviously there are self-serving reasons/ābiases for this, but I basically think this is a directionally correct move from the POV of the universe.
* I need to check if how much I can share, but 20% is not the lowest number Iāve seen from other people at RP, at least when I talk about specific intervention reports.
Yeah, this is a good point that I think I hadnāt had saliently in mind, which feels a bit embarrassing.
I think the important, correct core of what I was saying there is just that āthe value of adding 1 dollar to the pool of EA resourcesā and āthe value of guiding 1 dollar towards a good donation target (rather than it going towards a net negative target, a less good target, or going nowhere for a while)ā are not necessarily the same, and plausibly actually differ a lot, and also the value of the latter thing will itself differ a lot depending on various specifics. I think itās way less clear which of the two things is bigger and by how much, and I guess Iād now back down from even my tentative claims above and instead mostly shrug.
(EDIT: I realised I should note that I have more reasons behind my originally stated views than I gave, basically related to my EAIF work. But I havenāt given those reasons here, and overall my views on this are pretty unstable and not super informed.)
I agree with this.