Would one solution to the lack of diversity in funders be to break up OpenPhil? And I don’t just mean separate their different teams, I mean take some of their assets and make another completely separate and independent eg Longtermist grnatmaking organisation, with different staff, culture etc
Just a note that while forum users might have opinions on this proposal, this is ultimately a question for Cari and Dustin (I think this point is too often forgotten).
Yep, of course its their decision. But we can suggest whether we think it is the best thing to do with it. They could choose not to do that, doesn’t make it the right thing. The point I’m making here is IF they believe that having a better functioning EA community will give you better results, then they (maybe) ought to want to break up Open Phil into a couple of organisations.
Yeah I didn’t mean to accuse you of having forgotten that point (the language was a little mercenary but I assumed you weren’t being literal), I just think it’s worth reminding forum users in general to keep this in mind throughout any further discussion.
I also had this reaction, and I think it was mostly just the phrasing. “Break up OP” suggests that we have the power or right to do that, which we definitely don’t. I think if the post said “OP could consider breaking itself up” it wouldn’t sound like that.
Sort of. Except it’s a donation, so the latitude for difference is much less. EA funds is also less established in terms of investigations, coherent worldviews etc (not that individual grnatmakers don’t, but it’s not the same as the Rigour of openphil) which means EA Funds looks not too dissimilar to OpenPhil 2.0 I think
I think the proposal to have significant re-grantors is a more approachable way of achieving something similar, in that it delegates control of some funds.
I think this is a less bad idea than some think but I think it would require people that Moskovitz and Tuna trust, most of whom.. work at OpenPhil. Unsure therefore that this would result in very different decision making than present.
A really good thing about FTX was having another pole of funding.
Would one solution to the lack of diversity in funders be to break up OpenPhil? And I don’t just mean separate their different teams, I mean take some of their assets and make another completely separate and independent eg Longtermist grnatmaking organisation, with different staff, culture etc
Just a note that while forum users might have opinions on this proposal, this is ultimately a question for Cari and Dustin (I think this point is too often forgotten).
Yep, of course its their decision. But we can suggest whether we think it is the best thing to do with it. They could choose not to do that, doesn’t make it the right thing. The point I’m making here is IF they believe that having a better functioning EA community will give you better results, then they (maybe) ought to want to break up Open Phil into a couple of organisations.
Yeah I didn’t mean to accuse you of having forgotten that point (the language was a little mercenary but I assumed you weren’t being literal), I just think it’s worth reminding forum users in general to keep this in mind throughout any further discussion.
I also had this reaction, and I think it was mostly just the phrasing. “Break up OP” suggests that we have the power or right to do that, which we definitely don’t. I think if the post said “OP could consider breaking itself up” it wouldn’t sound like that.
OpenPhil donates to the EA Infrastructure Fund, which is kind of like this. They also have funds for regrantors like this.
Sort of. Except it’s a donation, so the latitude for difference is much less. EA funds is also less established in terms of investigations, coherent worldviews etc (not that individual grnatmakers don’t, but it’s not the same as the Rigour of openphil) which means EA Funds looks not too dissimilar to OpenPhil 2.0 I think
I think the proposal to have significant re-grantors is a more approachable way of achieving something similar, in that it delegates control of some funds.
I think this is a less bad idea than some think but I think it would require people that Moskovitz and Tuna trust, most of whom.. work at OpenPhil. Unsure therefore that this would result in very different decision making than present.
A really good thing about FTX was having another pole of funding.
I agree, it’s not useful if it’s just OpenPhil2.0. I’d hope Cari and Dustin would work out a way it would not be that if they wanted to
Sure but it seems if we are suggesting, then we should suggest that too right? And that does seem to be a core problem.