When I said that the EAIF and LTFF have room for more funding, I didnāt mean to say āEA research is funding-constrainedā but āI think some of the abundant EA research funding should be allocated here.ā
Ah, good point. So is your independent impression that the very large donors (e.g., Open Phil) are making a mistake by not multiplying the total funding allocated to EAIF and LTFF by (say) a factor of 0.5-5?
(I donāt think that that is a logically necessary consequence of what you said, but seems like it could be a consequence of what you said + some plausible other premises.
I ask about the very large donors specifically because things youāve said elsewhere already indicate you think smaller donors are indeed often making a mistake by not allocating more funding to EAIF and LTFF. But maybe Iām wrong about that.)
Hmm, why do you think this? I donāt remember having said that.
Actually I now think I was just wrong about that, sorry. I had been going off of vague memories, but when I checked your post history now to try to work out what I was remembering, I realised it may have been my memory playing weird tricks based on your donor lottery post, which actually made almost the opposite claim. Specifically, you say āFor this reason, we believe that a donor lottery is the most effective way for most smaller donors to give the majority of their donations, for those who feel comfortable with it.ā
(Which implies you think that thatās a more effective way for most smaller donors to give than giving to the EA Funds right awayārather than after winning a lottery and maybe ultimately deciding to give to the EA Funds.)
I think I may have been kind-of remembering what David Moss said as if it was your view, which is weird, since David was pushing against what you said.
Ah, good point. So is your independent impression that the very large donors (e.g., Open Phil) are making a mistake by not multiplying the total funding allocated to EAIF and LTFF by (say) a factor of 0.5-5?
(I donāt think that that is a logically necessary consequence of what you said, but seems like it could be a consequence of what you said + some plausible other premises.
I ask about the very large donors specifically because things youāve said elsewhere already indicate you think smaller donors are indeed often making a mistake by not allocating more funding to EAIF and LTFF. But maybe Iām wrong about that.)I donāt think anyone has made any mistakes so far, but they would (in my view) be making a mistake if they didnāt allocate more funding this year.
Edit:
Hmm, why do you think this? I donāt remember having said that.
Actually I now think I was just wrong about that, sorry. I had been going off of vague memories, but when I checked your post history now to try to work out what I was remembering, I realised it may have been my memory playing weird tricks based on your donor lottery post, which actually made almost the opposite claim. Specifically, you say āFor this reason, we believe that a donor lottery is the most effective way for most smaller donors to give the majority of their donations, for those who feel comfortable with it.ā
(Which implies you think that thatās a more effective way for most smaller donors to give than giving to the EA Funds right awayārather than after winning a lottery and maybe ultimately deciding to give to the EA Funds.)
I think I may have been kind-of remembering what David Moss said as if it was your view, which is weird, since David was pushing against what you said.
Iāve now struck out that part of my comment.