Like I said in my above comment, asking interesting questions to avoid stating inconvenient if valuable opinions doesn’t go far in EA. If you think so much centralization of decision-making in Open Phil in the person of Holden Karnofsky is suboptimal, and there are better alternatives, why not just say so?
I’m not claiming that any of the above will necessarily lead to better capital allocation than the current structure, but it seems plausible that they might.
I don’t know enough yet to say that an alternative structure would necessarily be better.
I intend to think about this more, and it seems good to do some of that thinking in public fora so that other people can contribute when they’re interested + have comparative advantage.
Strongly upvoted. I don’t have anything else to add right now then I now understand why you’re asking this question as you have, and that I agree it makes sense as a first step with the background assumptions you’re coming in with.
Like I said in my above comment, asking interesting questions to avoid stating inconvenient if valuable opinions doesn’t go far in EA. If you think so much centralization of decision-making in Open Phil in the person of Holden Karnofsky is suboptimal, and there are better alternatives, why not just say so?
From the OP:
I don’t know enough yet to say that an alternative structure would necessarily be better.
I intend to think about this more, and it seems good to do some of that thinking in public fora so that other people can contribute when they’re interested + have comparative advantage.
Strongly upvoted. I don’t have anything else to add right now then I now understand why you’re asking this question as you have, and that I agree it makes sense as a first step with the background assumptions you’re coming in with.