That seems pretty reasonable. However, I wonder whether it would be better to donate e.g. to EA Funds, which could then support people affected by the FTX collapse who apply.
EA Funds’ decisions would arguably be less biased. On the other hand, one may well be more informed about their own professional contacts than EA Funds would be, and one would also save everyone’s time.
I am confident that EA Funds is less biased and has managers with uniformly greater aptitude for grantmaking than me!
But I think that your opposing points are strong. Time costs for both EA Funds and grantees are especially high right now. And, relatedly, local information might be more precious.
If the trade-off is indeed between better-judged grantmaking and lower time/stress costs to people affected by the collapse, then, in present circumstances, I’m happy to err towards the latter.
I actually strongly disagree with this—I think too many people defer to the EA Funds on the margin. Don’t get me wrong, I think they do great work, but if FTX showed us anything it is that EA needs MORE funding diversity and I think this often shakes out as lots of people making many different decisions on where to give, so that e.g. and org doesn’t need to rely on its existence from whether or not its gets a grant from EA Funds/OP.
I actually strongly disagree with this—I think too many people defer to the EA Funds on the margin.
A priori, I think it makes sense to assume grantmakers from the EA Funds are better than me. I am open to the possibility of finding better opportunities than EA Funds, but guess it would take me too much time to be more effective than deferring to EA Funds. I also believe exceptions exist, as Joel pointed to above.
However, I do agree there should be more efforts to assess past grants from EA Funds, as Nuño Sempere did here.
Don’t get me wrong, I think they do great work, but if FTX showed us anything it is that EA needs MORE funding diversity and I think this often shakes out as lots of people making many different decisions on where to give, so that e.g. and org doesn’t need to rely on its existence from whether or not its gets a grant from EA Funds/OP.
I agree that, for the same amount of non-risk-adjusted funding, more funders will tend to increase risk-adjusted funding, which is good. However, it is arguably easier to increase non-risk-adjusted funding via large funders, since wealth is heavy-tailed. I do not know which consideration (and there are more) is stronger.
“Lots of people making many different decisions on where to give” does not seem to have worked out perfectly in the outer world. I expect the median person aligned with effective altruism would make better decisions than the median citizen, but specialisation to still be good. So the median grantmaker of EA Funds is arguably better at grantmaking than the median person aligned with effective altruism. One compromise is having more grantmakers (currently one of 80,000 Hours’ top carrer paths).
Hey Vasco, thanks for the well thought out response. I love the compromise—I think having more grantmakers (with different, but still strong EA perspectives) is a great way to go.
Thanks for sharing, Joel!
That seems pretty reasonable. However, I wonder whether it would be better to donate e.g. to EA Funds, which could then support people affected by the FTX collapse who apply.
EA Funds’ decisions would arguably be less biased. On the other hand, one may well be more informed about their own professional contacts than EA Funds would be, and one would also save everyone’s time.
I am confident that EA Funds is less biased and has managers with uniformly greater aptitude for grantmaking than me!
But I think that your opposing points are strong. Time costs for both EA Funds and grantees are especially high right now. And, relatedly, local information might be more precious.
If the trade-off is indeed between better-judged grantmaking and lower time/stress costs to people affected by the collapse, then, in present circumstances, I’m happy to err towards the latter.
I actually strongly disagree with this—I think too many people defer to the EA Funds on the margin. Don’t get me wrong, I think they do great work, but if FTX showed us anything it is that EA needs MORE funding diversity and I think this often shakes out as lots of people making many different decisions on where to give, so that e.g. and org doesn’t need to rely on its existence from whether or not its gets a grant from EA Funds/OP.
Hi Devon,
Thanks for engaging!
A priori, I think it makes sense to assume grantmakers from the EA Funds are better than me. I am open to the possibility of finding better opportunities than EA Funds, but guess it would take me too much time to be more effective than deferring to EA Funds. I also believe exceptions exist, as Joel pointed to above.
However, I do agree there should be more efforts to assess past grants from EA Funds, as Nuño Sempere did here.
I agree that, for the same amount of non-risk-adjusted funding, more funders will tend to increase risk-adjusted funding, which is good. However, it is arguably easier to increase non-risk-adjusted funding via large funders, since wealth is heavy-tailed. I do not know which consideration (and there are more) is stronger.
“Lots of people making many different decisions on where to give” does not seem to have worked out perfectly in the outer world. I expect the median person aligned with effective altruism would make better decisions than the median citizen, but specialisation to still be good. So the median grantmaker of EA Funds is arguably better at grantmaking than the median person aligned with effective altruism. One compromise is having more grantmakers (currently one of 80,000 Hours’ top carrer paths).
Hey Vasco, thanks for the well thought out response. I love the compromise—I think having more grantmakers (with different, but still strong EA perspectives) is a great way to go.