A much increased commitment to reasoning transparency around decisions people have questions about. For example, the purchase of Whytham Abbey, Twitter DMs with Musk and MacAskill, and claims of 2018-era warnings to EA leaders about SBF’s trustworthiness. Overall, I’m much more interested in a culture change towards transparency, rather than in answers about any of those few examples.
This is my top vote. A lot of stuff orgs like CEA do goes unexplained, and they can get away with it because they have a small number of major donors.
There’s a market-logic that I don’t particularly disagree with that if they can get donors happy to fund what they’re doing then they should feel entitled to do it—but I don’t think that can square with the idea of them being in any way representative of the broader community.
If they want to engage in EA black ops, we should have at least one separate white ops org (preferably more), whose funding is crowdsourced as much as possible, and who consider it a core part of their jobs to engage with and serve—rather than manage—the community.
There’s a market-logic that I don’t particularly disagree with that if they can get donors happy to fund what they’re doing then they should feel entitled to do i
I strongly disagree—since there’s an intrinsic conflict between doing what’s best for the world and doing what a small group of donors want most. If they present themselves as EA orgs, they should have much, much broader input (not necessarily from the EA community).
A much increased commitment to reasoning transparency around decisions people have questions about. For example, the purchase of Whytham Abbey, Twitter DMs with Musk and MacAskill, and claims of 2018-era warnings to EA leaders about SBF’s trustworthiness. Overall, I’m much more interested in a culture change towards transparency, rather than in answers about any of those few examples.
This is my top vote. A lot of stuff orgs like CEA do goes unexplained, and they can get away with it because they have a small number of major donors.
There’s a market-logic that I don’t particularly disagree with that if they can get donors happy to fund what they’re doing then they should feel entitled to do it—but I don’t think that can square with the idea of them being in any way representative of the broader community.
If they want to engage in EA black ops, we should have at least one separate white ops org (preferably more), whose funding is crowdsourced as much as possible, and who consider it a core part of their jobs to engage with and serve—rather than manage—the community.
I strongly disagree—since there’s an intrinsic conflict between doing what’s best for the world and doing what a small group of donors want most. If they present themselves as EA orgs, they should have much, much broader input (not necessarily from the EA community).