The project aligns closely with the fund’s vision of a “principles-first EA” community, we’d be excited for the EA community’s outputs to look more like Richard’s.
Is this saying that the move to principle’s first EA as a strategic perspective for EAF goes with a belief that more EA work should be “principles first” & not cause specific? (so that more of the community’s outputs look like Richard’s)? I wouldn’t have necessarily inferred that just from the fact that you’re making this strategic shift (could be ore of a comp advantage / focus thing) so wanted to clarify.
I think this was something that got lost-in-translation during the grant writeup process. In the grant evaluation doc this was written as:
I think [Richard’s research] clearly fits into the kind of project that we want the EA community to be - [that output] feels pretty closely aligned to our “principles-first EA” vision
This a fairly fuzzy view, but my impression is Richard’s outputs will align with the takes in this post both by “fighting for EA to thrive long term” (increasing the quality of discussion around EA in the public domain), and also by increasing the number of “thoughtful, sincere, selfless” individuals in the community (via his substack which has a decently sized readership), who may become more deeply involved in EA as a result.
--
On the broader question about “principles first” vs “cause specific” EA work:
I think EAIF will ceteris paribus fund more “principles-first” projects than cause specific meta projects compared to previously.
However, I think this counterbalances other grantmaking changes which focus on cause-specific meta directly (e.g. OP GCR capacity building / GHW funding).
I’d guess this nets out such that the fraction of funding towards “principles-first” EA decreases, rather than increases (due to OP’s significantly larger assets).
As such, the decision to focus on “principles-first” is more of a comp advantage / focus for EAIF specifically, rather than a belief about what the community should do more broadly
(That said, on the margin I think a push in this direction is probably helpful / healthy for the community more broadly, but this is pretty lightly held and other fund managers might disagree)
Is this saying that the move to principle’s first EA as a strategic perspective for EAF goes with a belief that more EA work should be “principles first” & not cause specific? (so that more of the community’s outputs look like Richard’s)? I wouldn’t have necessarily inferred that just from the fact that you’re making this strategic shift (could be ore of a comp advantage / focus thing) so wanted to clarify.
Hi Arden, thanks for the comment
I think this was something that got lost-in-translation during the grant writeup process. In the grant evaluation doc this was written as:
This a fairly fuzzy view, but my impression is Richard’s outputs will align with the takes in this post both by “fighting for EA to thrive long term” (increasing the quality of discussion around EA in the public domain), and also by increasing the number of “thoughtful, sincere, selfless” individuals in the community (via his substack which has a decently sized readership), who may become more deeply involved in EA as a result.
--
On the broader question about “principles first” vs “cause specific” EA work:
I think EAIF will ceteris paribus fund more “principles-first” projects than cause specific meta projects compared to previously.
However, I think this counterbalances other grantmaking changes which focus on cause-specific meta directly (e.g. OP GCR capacity building / GHW funding).
I’d guess this nets out such that the fraction of funding towards “principles-first” EA decreases, rather than increases (due to OP’s significantly larger assets).
As such, the decision to focus on “principles-first” is more of a comp advantage / focus for EAIF specifically, rather than a belief about what the community should do more broadly
(That said, on the margin I think a push in this direction is probably helpful / healthy for the community more broadly, but this is pretty lightly held and other fund managers might disagree)