I agree that the depth of the evidence conversations doesnât lend itself to amateur discussion on the forum and I also feel like thereâs not much I have to add to the GHD discussions here because of that.
Donât think itâs fair to say itâs not prioritised among the orgs. My understanding is that Coefficient Giving still gives huge amounts to GiveWell charities and grants.
Last I heard it was something like 10% of their GCR budget.
Itâs also basically impossible to apply for GHD funding. I recently decided to put my money where my mouth is and get involved in an early stage GHD project, but thereâs basically no EA-aligned funder whoâs willing to let you approach them.
SFF are exclusively longtermist, EA GHD as mentioned basically shut down, and Givewell and CoGi donât accept unsolicited applications. So as far as I can see if you think you have an idea in the GHD space and need funding for it you basically have to look outside the EA world (someone tell me if I missed something!)
Last I heard it was something like 10% of their GCR budget.
I donât think thatâs right â CG gave $400m to GHW in 2025, and to get a sense of what % that might be, Alexander Berger (CEO of CG) shared that overall âCoefficient Giving directed over $1 billion in 2025â in his recent letter.
Iâm confused by the strong negative reaction to this comment. I guess itâs about the CoGi funding, which does sound like I was wrong. But it seems to be true that thereâs no option to directly apply for funding for a new project (NickLaing mentions the GH funding circle, but they completed one round last year and their website doesnât currently imply there would be any more).
I think this helps explain the decline of GHD in the OPâAIMâs charity list notwithstanding, no-one in the movement is incentivised to come up with practical ideas in the field.
Yep this is a legitimate concern, its hard for new projects that arenât being incubated through CE for sure. I think there are decent arguments for bigger funders not funding new initiatives though. I think its not the worst for friends/âfamily/ânon EA funds to help starting new initiatives before official funders get involved. Also (I could be wrong) if you made a very strong argument here on the forum there might be people willing to help.
The Global Health Funding circle is another EA avenue for newer ventures :). Also Scott Alexanderâs yearly giveaway is open to new ideas and they fund a bunch of GHD stuff
I agree that the depth of the evidence conversations doesnât lend itself to amateur discussion on the forum and I also feel like thereâs not much I have to add to the GHD discussions here because of that.
Donât think itâs fair to say itâs not prioritised among the orgs. My understanding is that Coefficient Giving still gives huge amounts to GiveWell charities and grants.
Last I heard it was something like 10% of their GCR budget.
Itâs also basically impossible to apply for GHD funding. I recently decided to put my money where my mouth is and get involved in an early stage GHD project, but thereâs basically no EA-aligned funder whoâs willing to let you approach them.
SFF are exclusively longtermist, EA GHD as mentioned basically shut down, and Givewell and CoGi donât accept unsolicited applications. So as far as I can see if you think you have an idea in the GHD space and need funding for it you basically have to look outside the EA world (someone tell me if I missed something!)
Hey Arepo!
I donât think thatâs right â CG gave $400m to GHW in 2025, and to get a sense of what % that might be, Alexander Berger (CEO of CG) shared that overall âCoefficient Giving directed over $1 billion in 2025â in his recent letter.
Iâm confused by the strong negative reaction to this comment. I guess itâs about the CoGi funding, which does sound like I was wrong. But it seems to be true that thereâs no option to directly apply for funding for a new project (NickLaing mentions the GH funding circle, but they completed one round last year and their website doesnât currently imply there would be any more).
I think this helps explain the decline of GHD in the OPâAIMâs charity list notwithstanding, no-one in the movement is incentivised to come up with practical ideas in the field.
Yep this is a legitimate concern, its hard for new projects that arenât being incubated through CE for sure. I think there are decent arguments for bigger funders not funding new initiatives though. I think its not the worst for friends/âfamily/ânon EA funds to help starting new initiatives before official funders get involved. Also (I could be wrong) if you made a very strong argument here on the forum there might be people willing to help.
The Global Health Funding circle is another EA avenue for newer ventures :). Also Scott Alexanderâs yearly giveaway is open to new ideas and they fund a bunch of GHD stuff