I think there are plausibly contrary explanations for some of these observations. for senior staff moving to Open Phil, it could be because Open Phil is younger, and its tasks are less structured. For top charities running out of room for more funding, this is only the top couple of GiveWell charities, and this needn’t apply to intergenerationally-altruistic charities. GiveWell has mentioned a couple of organisations that they would like to see, but it’s not as though finding such opportunities has yet become their main activity.
I think the general point is right though: Good Ventures has most of the cash that we need, and EA Ventures has some also, as do Jaan Tallin, Sam Harris, edit: Matt Wage and others. Most of the people who are clever enough to want to make epic charities are also clever enough to know that they can have a more secure and conventional life elsewhere. This can be solved by just starting epic charities anyway, and by accumulating more funding to push more marginal individuals to do the same.
I think there are plausibly contrary explanations for some of these observations.
Yeah, I agree; I think they’re suggestive rather than definitive.
and by accumulating more funding to push more marginal individuals to do the same.
Sorry—didn’t you previously say that you agreed marginal people should be focusing less on accumulating more funding? I think I’m missing a link somewhere here.
What charity would you start?
Good question! I suspect the fact that this is much less well-defined than “which org would you donate to” is one of the psychological factors in favor of EtG :P
and by accumulating more funding to push more marginal individuals to do the same.
Sorry—didn’t you previously say that you agreed marginal people should be focusing less on accumulating more funding? I think I’m missing a link somewhere here.
EA charities seem sufficiently talent constrained at the moment that I think some organisations will want to take a combination of two different measures: increasing salaries and encouraging people to move across from ETG (or not enter ETG in the first place).
I think there are plausibly contrary explanations for some of these observations. for senior staff moving to Open Phil, it could be because Open Phil is younger, and its tasks are less structured. For top charities running out of room for more funding, this is only the top couple of GiveWell charities, and this needn’t apply to intergenerationally-altruistic charities. GiveWell has mentioned a couple of organisations that they would like to see, but it’s not as though finding such opportunities has yet become their main activity.
I think the general point is right though: Good Ventures has most of the cash that we need, and EA Ventures has some also, as do Jaan Tallin, Sam Harris, edit: Matt Wage and others. Most of the people who are clever enough to want to make epic charities are also clever enough to know that they can have a more secure and conventional life elsewhere. This can be solved by just starting epic charities anyway, and by accumulating more funding to push more marginal individuals to do the same.
What charity would you start?
Yeah, I agree; I think they’re suggestive rather than definitive.
Sorry—didn’t you previously say that you agreed marginal people should be focusing less on accumulating more funding? I think I’m missing a link somewhere here.
Good question! I suspect the fact that this is much less well-defined than “which org would you donate to” is one of the psychological factors in favor of EtG :P
EA charities seem sufficiently talent constrained at the moment that I think some organisations will want to take a combination of two different measures: increasing salaries and encouraging people to move across from ETG (or not enter ETG in the first place).
To avoid confusing people: my own annual contributions to charity are modest.
Wait, I meant Matt Wage. Why did I write Nick Beckstead???