(Wrote this earlier; just submitting it as a comment now before discussing this post with EA Austin.)
I didn’t find the chart easy to understand. Like Jonas, I couldn’t figure out what the numbers in brackets mean.
Additionally, I couldn’t tell if the limited /
middling / strong classificiations were just intuitive judgment calls based on Joey’s experience, or if they were supposed to represent something objective.
I couldn’t tell whether limited / middling / strong was supposed to be a measure of availability of funding relative to demand, availability of funding in absolute terms, a measure of how easy it is for someone looking to get funding in this area for a project of a given expected cost-effectivess (and if so whether the cost-effectiveness standard is different or the same for each cause area, or what the standard was at all), or something else.
The combination of the table seeming fairly vague and the fact that some people in the comments strongly disagreed with some of the classifications (e.g. for biorisk) makes me concerned that the table is not as informative as I initially assumed it would be (given that the post had 197 karma when I saw it), leading me to be concerned that some people might assume the classifications in the table mean more than they do. I.e. I’m afraid that this post won’t do a good job adding the nuance to the funding gap discussion that it intended to.
(Wrote this earlier; just submitting it as a comment now before discussing this post with EA Austin.)
I didn’t find the chart easy to understand. Like Jonas, I couldn’t figure out what the numbers in brackets mean.
Additionally, I couldn’t tell if the limited / middling / strong classificiations were just intuitive judgment calls based on Joey’s experience, or if they were supposed to represent something objective.
I couldn’t tell whether limited / middling / strong was supposed to be a measure of availability of funding relative to demand, availability of funding in absolute terms, a measure of how easy it is for someone looking to get funding in this area for a project of a given expected cost-effectivess (and if so whether the cost-effectiveness standard is different or the same for each cause area, or what the standard was at all), or something else.
The combination of the table seeming fairly vague and the fact that some people in the comments strongly disagreed with some of the classifications (e.g. for biorisk) makes me concerned that the table is not as informative as I initially assumed it would be (given that the post had 197 karma when I saw it), leading me to be concerned that some people might assume the classifications in the table mean more than they do. I.e. I’m afraid that this post won’t do a good job adding the nuance to the funding gap discussion that it intended to.