the de-emphasis on earning to give affecting the universe of potential viable funders for upstarts
I mean, we started out without any earning-to-give people funding us. I think that’s more the period Michael_PJ is referencing here (“most of our “big” orgs started with a couple of people in a basement”).
And it was the early emphasis on earning to give by these “big organizations and funders” that meant there were any earning-to-give people.
It feels a bit unfair to act like these orgs/funders are to blame for why EAs today find it more challenging to get funding, when these orgs/funders are the reason there’s any funding for other EAs at all and who didn’t receive any pay themselves when they started building these orgs? I don’t follow.
I don’t see where I am casting “blame” on anyone. I’m glad the megadonors chose to give to EA causes rather than (e.g.) stocking university endowments. It was reasonable to place less emphasis on earning-to-give in light of projections at the time.
However, it also seems that but for the introduction of megadonors and de-emphasis of EtG, there would be greater diversification of funding sources than actually happened.
Generally speaking, people wanting to try new things in an established ecosystem face different challenges from those wanting to create a new ecosystem. I’m not opining on whether those challenges are greater or worse than those present in 2008 or 2013. But I think it’s important to understand why some members of the community don’t seem to feel an empowering just-do-it spirit.
But you’re talking about a “decline in a just-do-it attitude” caused by “challenges for would-be doers in 2023 that weren’t necessarily (as) present in 2008 or 2013″, but then seem to be saying that ‘Now we have tons of money from Open Phil and a lot from other places’ is a ‘challenge’ that EAs today face that wasn’t as present in 2008 or 2013...because back then there was hardly any money at all.
And I’m saying that I don’t see how having money now (skewed heavily to one funder) is supposed to explain a decline in a just-do-it attitude?
(I realise that you also say “a small group birthing a startup in the first wave’s signature cause area—global health—without outside help or funding is probably easier than doing the same in AI safety” but that seems very non-obvious to me and in fact I would have guessed the opposite.)
I mean, we started out without any earning-to-give people funding us. I think that’s more the period Michael_PJ is referencing here (“most of our “big” orgs started with a couple of people in a basement”).
And it was the early emphasis on earning to give by these “big organizations and funders” that meant there were any earning-to-give people.
It feels a bit unfair to act like these orgs/funders are to blame for why EAs today find it more challenging to get funding, when these orgs/funders are the reason there’s any funding for other EAs at all and who didn’t receive any pay themselves when they started building these orgs? I don’t follow.
I don’t see where I am casting “blame” on anyone. I’m glad the megadonors chose to give to EA causes rather than (e.g.) stocking university endowments. It was reasonable to place less emphasis on earning-to-give in light of projections at the time.
However, it also seems that but for the introduction of megadonors and de-emphasis of EtG, there would be greater diversification of funding sources than actually happened.
Generally speaking, people wanting to try new things in an established ecosystem face different challenges from those wanting to create a new ecosystem. I’m not opining on whether those challenges are greater or worse than those present in 2008 or 2013. But I think it’s important to understand why some members of the community don’t seem to feel an empowering just-do-it spirit.
But you’re talking about a “decline in a just-do-it attitude” caused by “challenges for would-be doers in 2023 that weren’t necessarily (as) present in 2008 or 2013″, but then seem to be saying that ‘Now we have tons of money from Open Phil and a lot from other places’ is a ‘challenge’ that EAs today face that wasn’t as present in 2008 or 2013...because back then there was hardly any money at all.
And I’m saying that I don’t see how having money now (skewed heavily to one funder) is supposed to explain a decline in a just-do-it attitude?
(I realise that you also say “a small group birthing a startup in the first wave’s signature cause area—global health—without outside help or funding is probably easier than doing the same in AI safety” but that seems very non-obvious to me and in fact I would have guessed the opposite.)