Maybe his own org and other global development orgs? I think it’s almost always a mistake for a non-profit to get this much money this quickly, regardless of how much potential they have or the good reputation of their founders. It is difficult to gradually build an org and organically make the inevitable mistakes when you are given 10 million dollars in the first year.
I won’t speak for @MathiasKB , but these agree some of my benchmarks outside the AI realm—he can share what he means :).
The Center for Effective aid policy Matthias and co is a brand new org, so don’t have evidence of outputs or financials yet. They were given 170,000US to start up. To many in the development world even 170k might still seem like a lot for an NGO to start with, but it’s still a lot less than 10 million.
Last year our org OneDay Health which has a decent chance of being effective employed 43 staff, launched 8 Health centers, treated 50,000 patients in the most remote rural parts of Uganda, and our total expenditure for the year was $104,000 US dollars.
If we are looking at a development org with a budget on a similar scale, Last Mile Health has a 10 year track record, grew steadily, has won countless awards (Social innovation, TED prizes etc), has been a crucial part of the global movement for rolling out community health workers impacting improving health access to millions of people accross 5+ countries, and employs hundreds of people both in the US and developing world. They spent about 26 million dollars last year. Which is a lot of money, but in the ballpark of Redwood research and only after many years of high performance, proven recognition and growth.
Even as a global development guy, I think AI alignment research is important, but it is somewhat hard to understand why it’s a good idea for a new, small org like this to get this much money from the getgo. Perhaps start with 1 million in the first year with the CEO and co-founder taking a low-ish salary while the org builds their reputation then ramp things up after that?
Mind you if we really do only have 5-20 years before potentially dangerous GAI, maybe we have to sacrifice sustainable growth and stewardship of money at the altar of having a chance to save the world?
Maybe his own org and other global development orgs? I think it’s almost always a mistake for a non-profit to get this much money this quickly, regardless of how much potential they have or the good reputation of their founders. It is difficult to gradually build an org and organically make the inevitable mistakes when you are given 10 million dollars in the first year.
I won’t speak for @MathiasKB , but these agree some of my benchmarks outside the AI realm—he can share what he means :).
The Center for Effective aid policy Matthias and co is a brand new org, so don’t have evidence of outputs or financials yet. They were given 170,000US to start up. To many in the development world even 170k might still seem like a lot for an NGO to start with, but it’s still a lot less than 10 million.
Last year our org OneDay Health which has a decent chance of being effective employed 43 staff, launched 8 Health centers, treated 50,000 patients in the most remote rural parts of Uganda, and our total expenditure for the year was $104,000 US dollars.
If we are looking at a development org with a budget on a similar scale, Last Mile Health has a 10 year track record, grew steadily, has won countless awards (Social innovation, TED prizes etc), has been a crucial part of the global movement for rolling out community health workers impacting improving health access to millions of people accross 5+ countries, and employs hundreds of people both in the US and developing world. They spent about 26 million dollars last year. Which is a lot of money, but in the ballpark of Redwood research and only after many years of high performance, proven recognition and growth.
Even as a global development guy, I think AI alignment research is important, but it is somewhat hard to understand why it’s a good idea for a new, small org like this to get this much money from the getgo. Perhaps start with 1 million in the first year with the CEO and co-founder taking a low-ish salary while the org builds their reputation then ramp things up after that?
Mind you if we really do only have 5-20 years before potentially dangerous GAI, maybe we have to sacrifice sustainable growth and stewardship of money at the altar of having a chance to save the world?