Thanks Vaidehi. That’s a tough one as it’s often a matter of who and to what degree but generally speaking (it’s probably unsurprising and I’m a bit biassed) I’ve most often disagreed quite strongly with the degree to which effective giving has been deprioritised or dismissed within other core-EA meta organisations.
I’m very sympathetic (downright agree with) to these parts though:
We wouldn’t want someone to turn down (or not seek out) a good fit opportunity for direct work because they got the idea that giving at a ~regular pledger level is more impactful in expectation than a high-impact good fit direct work role.
We don’t want EA to be equated with giving and the “EA is earning to give” meme is not good for the community.
Donations are heavy-tailed (most donation $ will come from a smaller number of large donors).
Longtermist giving is more evaluation constrained, riskier, and harder to make good recommendations for donors.
However, I do think that at time’s it has got to a pretty extreme level of aversion to talking about giving as a path to impact. That being said I’m seeing many people change their tune over the last 6 months as the funding constraints (experienced by many others) have started to hit them more personally.
The other one that comes to mind is the importance of things like governance and being leligibly good and seen as “safe” from from the outside. Views on this seem to be evolving more recently too.
Thanks Vaidehi. That’s a tough one as it’s often a matter of who and to what degree but generally speaking (it’s probably unsurprising and I’m a bit biassed) I’ve most often disagreed quite strongly with the degree to which effective giving has been deprioritised or dismissed within other core-EA meta organisations.
I’m very sympathetic (downright agree with) to these parts though:
We wouldn’t want someone to turn down (or not seek out) a good fit opportunity for direct work because they got the idea that giving at a ~regular pledger level is more impactful in expectation than a high-impact good fit direct work role.
We don’t want EA to be equated with giving and the “EA is earning to give” meme is not good for the community.
Donations are heavy-tailed (most donation $ will come from a smaller number of large donors).
Longtermist giving is more evaluation constrained, riskier, and harder to make good recommendations for donors.
However, I do think that at time’s it has got to a pretty extreme level of aversion to talking about giving as a path to impact. That being said I’m seeing many people change their tune over the last 6 months as the funding constraints (experienced by many others) have started to hit them more personally.
The other one that comes to mind is the importance of things like governance and being leligibly good and seen as “safe” from from the outside. Views on this seem to be evolving more recently too.