Since somebody nudged me to reply to this. I didnāt find this reply very convincing.
First, I agree that work pulling people into AI safety is/āwill be more time-consuming. Other than that, though,
I think that the ratio of grantmakers:people in AIS isnāt that informative for answering the question, āis the number of grantmakers a bottleneckā
This seems off to me. Surely youād agree that if the ratio were 1:1 or something, we would say āok, some people who are currently grantmaking need to be doing direct workā. Not everyone can just be funding things.
The better ratio is presumably something like, āpeople who could be working in AI safety/āgovernance if they got funding: grantmakersā
I mean, maybe thatās another one to consider, but it still feels less relevant. A lot of people think that the denominator in this case is infinite/ā(nearly) all humans.
We currently feel more constrained by evaluating or creating new funding opportunities than directing $ to them
I actually donāt think this necessarily implies that we should get a lot more people into grantmaking. This could just mean that there is a lot of money available and that grantmakers should move into roles on the ground (direct work)
Since somebody nudged me to reply to this. I didnāt find this reply very convincing.
First, I agree that work pulling people into AI safety is/āwill be more time-consuming. Other than that, though,
This seems off to me. Surely youād agree that if the ratio were 1:1 or something, we would say āok, some people who are currently grantmaking need to be doing direct workā. Not everyone can just be funding things.
I mean, maybe thatās another one to consider, but it still feels less relevant. A lot of people think that the denominator in this case is infinite/ā(nearly) all humans.
I actually donāt think this necessarily implies that we should get a lot more people into grantmaking. This could just mean that there is a lot of money available and that grantmakers should move into roles on the ground (direct work)