As a non-expert, I’m really surprised by the first two points! It doesn’t seem to match the most successful names in this space (except maybe Effective Altruism itself)
Preserve option value by giving yourself a vague name
I personally really like that AMF, GWWC, 80k, and GiveWell have non-vague names! It makes it so much easier to remember them and talk about them, especially in groups with non-fulltime-EAs!
E.g. If I meet a chemical engineer in an EA context I might ask them thoughts about the Lead Exposure Elimination Project and don’t have to go “what was the name of that org again? Let me google a description and hope I can find it”.
The first ~3 times I saw someone mention Nonlinear I had to google something like “nonlinear effective altruism” to remember what you do. If someone talks about wanting to start a “longermist” project, my brain goes “did you talk with the Long Term Future Fund?”. But it takes some effort to think about Nonlinear, I think in part because of the name.
Keep it three syllables or less, or know that its shortened form will also be good
I really like the name “Giving What We Can”! I never heard anyone trying to pronounce “GWWC”. In speaking, the full name sounds great. In writing, “GWWC” is very easy to google (compare to ACE and CFAR). I had to google lots of things when I started reading EA content.
In your experience, is changing the name or creating a new org very costly? Isn’t it actually better to change the name so people don’t think you’re still working on the old stuff? Is there something obvious I’m missing?
For vagueness you do lose out on remembering what your org does in exchange for option value. I’d say that the option value is more important though, since most of the variance in impact doesn’t come from people not remembering what you do, but what strategy you follow. You want to minimize the friction for updating your strategy based on new evidence and considerations.
And then if you change strategy without changing your name (which is indeed quite costly), it also causes problems. For example, Open Phil and OpenAI have both been criticized for not being as open as their names would suggest.
As a non-expert, I’m really surprised by the first two points! It doesn’t seem to match the most successful names in this space (except maybe Effective Altruism itself)
I personally really like that AMF, GWWC, 80k, and GiveWell have non-vague names!
It makes it so much easier to remember them and talk about them, especially in groups with non-fulltime-EAs!
E.g. If I meet a chemical engineer in an EA context I might ask them thoughts about the Lead Exposure Elimination Project and don’t have to go “what was the name of that org again? Let me google a description and hope I can find it”.
The first ~3 times I saw someone mention Nonlinear I had to google something like “nonlinear effective altruism” to remember what you do.
If someone talks about wanting to start a “longermist” project, my brain goes “did you talk with the Long Term Future Fund?”. But it takes some effort to think about Nonlinear, I think in part because of the name.
I really like the name “Giving What We Can”! I never heard anyone trying to pronounce “GWWC”.
In speaking, the full name sounds great. In writing, “GWWC” is very easy to google (compare to ACE and CFAR). I had to google lots of things when I started reading EA content.
In your experience, is changing the name or creating a new org very costly? Isn’t it actually better to change the name so people don’t think you’re still working on the old stuff? Is there something obvious I’m missing?
Interesting thoughts!
For vagueness you do lose out on remembering what your org does in exchange for option value. I’d say that the option value is more important though, since most of the variance in impact doesn’t come from people not remembering what you do, but what strategy you follow. You want to minimize the friction for updating your strategy based on new evidence and considerations.
And then if you change strategy without changing your name (which is indeed quite costly), it also causes problems. For example, Open Phil and OpenAI have both been criticized for not being as open as their names would suggest.