I’m in favor of more work on figuring out policy strategy from an effectiveness perspective, but I don’t know that “EA” is responsible for that work
I agree. It’s my habit for the sake of argument in casual and generic discussions in EA to treat “EA” as a unitary blob of resources. I agree if we’re seriously trying to getpoliy specific, it doesn’t make sense to talk about EA as a whole unit, but the individual actions of particular actors in and around the EA ecosystem.
Are there specific actors within EA who ought to be doing more, but aren’t?
I haven’t thought about this enough to name specific organizations. There appear to be blocs within EA who support policy reform in particular areas, which may or may not be shared with the Open Philanthropy Project. However, unlike Open Phil, the most a bloc of supporters for a particular kind of policy reform in EA appear to organize themselves into is an informal association that is all talk, no action. When I think of EA-connected policy work, the following comes to mind:
Open Phil, through their grants.
The NGOs Open Phil grants to, which usually either predate EA, or are largely independent of the community aside from their relationship with Open Phil.
A number of academic/research policy institutes focused on global coordination, AI alignment, and other x-risks, launched in tandem with some of the world’s leading research universities, such as UC Berkeley, Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge.
In other words, these are all orgs that probably would have gotten off the ground, and could achieve their goals, without the support of EA, except for Open Phil as an EA-aligned org. And by “Open Phil”, it’s more like just Good Ventures and a handful of program officers. So if we subtract their efforts from the rest of the policy work the EA community can take credit for, there isn’t much left.
Collectively combined, the rest of the EA community is several thousand people with a decade of experience through dozens of independently launched NGOs/NPOs and tens of millions of dollars at their disposal who, for all we talk about public policy, haven’t done much about it. I believe some EA associations in Europe have done some policy consulting, yet, for example, in the United States, the most significant policy work that I’m aware has ever been tried in EA independent of Open Phil was EA Policy Analytics, which didn’t go very far.
What would this due diligence look like? Is there a certain thing you wish someone had created that no one has? Have people created the kinds of things you want, but in a low-quality fashion?
I’d like to see more comprehensive responses to individual critiques of EA in history, and also to the body of criticism of EA in general. I think the series of more informal blog posts different EAs have written as responses to such critiques over the years have been okay, but they haven’t really moved the dial. My impression EA, and our leftist critics, have reached a stand-still/impasse, but this is unnecessary. A systematic review of leftist criticism of EA is something I’m working on myself, though it isn’t at the top of my priority list to finish it in the near future.
I agree. It’s my habit for the sake of argument in casual and generic discussions in EA to treat “EA” as a unitary blob of resources. I agree if we’re seriously trying to getpoliy specific, it doesn’t make sense to talk about EA as a whole unit, but the individual actions of particular actors in and around the EA ecosystem.
I haven’t thought about this enough to name specific organizations. There appear to be blocs within EA who support policy reform in particular areas, which may or may not be shared with the Open Philanthropy Project. However, unlike Open Phil, the most a bloc of supporters for a particular kind of policy reform in EA appear to organize themselves into is an informal association that is all talk, no action. When I think of EA-connected policy work, the following comes to mind:
Open Phil, through their grants.
The NGOs Open Phil grants to, which usually either predate EA, or are largely independent of the community aside from their relationship with Open Phil.
A number of academic/research policy institutes focused on global coordination, AI alignment, and other x-risks, launched in tandem with some of the world’s leading research universities, such as UC Berkeley, Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge.
In other words, these are all orgs that probably would have gotten off the ground, and could achieve their goals, without the support of EA, except for Open Phil as an EA-aligned org. And by “Open Phil”, it’s more like just Good Ventures and a handful of program officers. So if we subtract their efforts from the rest of the policy work the EA community can take credit for, there isn’t much left.
Collectively combined, the rest of the EA community is several thousand people with a decade of experience through dozens of independently launched NGOs/NPOs and tens of millions of dollars at their disposal who, for all we talk about public policy, haven’t done much about it. I believe some EA associations in Europe have done some policy consulting, yet, for example, in the United States, the most significant policy work that I’m aware has ever been tried in EA independent of Open Phil was EA Policy Analytics, which didn’t go very far.
I’d like to see more comprehensive responses to individual critiques of EA in history, and also to the body of criticism of EA in general. I think the series of more informal blog posts different EAs have written as responses to such critiques over the years have been okay, but they haven’t really moved the dial. My impression EA, and our leftist critics, have reached a stand-still/impasse, but this is unnecessary. A systematic review of leftist criticism of EA is something I’m working on myself, though it isn’t at the top of my priority list to finish it in the near future.
I haven’t. I’ll check them out. I wasn’t aware of these developments, so thanks for bringing them to my attention.