Thereâs no one, and no organisation, who conceives of themselves as taking ownership of EA, or as being responsible for EA as a whole.
Given that Open Phil is responsible for a large share of EA funding, including apparently 70% a large share of movement building funding, too, should we consider them largely responsible for EA as a whole, even if not solely responsible?
Iâm wary of trying to treat Open Phil as 70% responsible for the community for a few reasons:
In practice, I can see this ending up as something more like 95%. Everyone else feels like theyâre not responsible because theyâre not mainly responsible.
Funding movement-building isnât the only way to have responsibility for EA. If someone has never donated to movement-building, do they have zero responsibility? Even if theyâre an associated public figure or talking about EA to the press or advocating for EA-aligned policy changes etc? The whole picture is actually pretty complex.
I think on the whole, EAs should move more in the direction of taking responsibility than pointing fingers (for reasons the OP mentions e.g. I think the attitude of âOpen Philâs got X coveredâ would generally make EA worse). I think itâs a bad sign that the first comment on this post is essentially, â...So can we blame Open Phil?â
Having said that, I am surprised at how little people have been pointing fingers at Open Phil relative to EVF in recent months. I suspect thatâs partly because a lot of people didnât have a good sense of the funding landscape, so perhaps that 70% is a good stat to highlight.
FWIW, Open Phil is also largely responsible for non-movement building EA funding, but the rest of your comment still seems to stand replacing âmovement-buildingâ with âEA organizations/âworkâ.
I think nuance is important here. Who should take what kind of responsibility? There should be responsibility to take at multiple levels (within an organization, the board, etc.), but Open Phil has the opportunity to deny funding and pressure organizations and individuals in different directions. Other than funding and Open Phil, there are internal decisions/âprocesses, legal processes, shaming and disinvitations from EA events, maybe others. Even if those fail, donât happen or donât apply, we can still put pressure on their funding. If Open Phil is a major source of their funding, this will largely fall on Open Phil.
And Open Phil has a responsibility to do at least some due diligence, too.
Yes, sorry, nuance is important, I havenât done the hard work of figuring out the details, and if you want to make EA better then itâs important to be aware of the key levers currently at play.
Iâm just trying to push back on what I see as an unhealthy trend in EA away from the mindset of âHow can we do better for the world?â towards âHow can you do better for the world?â or even âHow can you do better for me?â (Although I need to keep remembering that this phenomenon seems much more pronounced on this forum than IRL!)
Given that Open Phil is responsible for a large share of EA funding, including
apparently 70%a large share of movement building funding, too, should we consider them largely responsible for EA as a whole, even if not solely responsible?Iâm wary of trying to treat Open Phil as 70% responsible for the community for a few reasons:
In practice, I can see this ending up as something more like 95%. Everyone else feels like theyâre not responsible because theyâre not mainly responsible.
Funding movement-building isnât the only way to have responsibility for EA. If someone has never donated to movement-building, do they have zero responsibility? Even if theyâre an associated public figure or talking about EA to the press or advocating for EA-aligned policy changes etc? The whole picture is actually pretty complex.
I think on the whole, EAs should move more in the direction of taking responsibility than pointing fingers (for reasons the OP mentions e.g. I think the attitude of âOpen Philâs got X coveredâ would generally make EA worse). I think itâs a bad sign that the first comment on this post is essentially, â...So can we blame Open Phil?â
Having said that, I am surprised at how little people have been pointing fingers at Open Phil relative to EVF in recent months. I suspect thatâs partly because a lot of people didnât have a good sense of the funding landscape, so perhaps that 70% is a good stat to highlight.
FWIW, Open Phil is also largely responsible for non-movement building EA funding, but the rest of your comment still seems to stand replacing âmovement-buildingâ with âEA organizations/âworkâ.
I think nuance is important here. Who should take what kind of responsibility? There should be responsibility to take at multiple levels (within an organization, the board, etc.), but Open Phil has the opportunity to deny funding and pressure organizations and individuals in different directions. Other than funding and Open Phil, there are internal decisions/âprocesses, legal processes, shaming and disinvitations from EA events, maybe others. Even if those fail, donât happen or donât apply, we can still put pressure on their funding. If Open Phil is a major source of their funding, this will largely fall on Open Phil.
And Open Phil has a responsibility to do at least some due diligence, too.
Yes, sorry, nuance is important, I havenât done the hard work of figuring out the details, and if you want to make EA better then itâs important to be aware of the key levers currently at play.
Iâm just trying to push back on what I see as an unhealthy trend in EA away from the mindset of âHow can we do better for the world?â towards âHow can you do better for the world?â or even âHow can you do better for me?â (Although I need to keep remembering that this phenomenon seems much more pronounced on this forum than IRL!)