I still perceive it as suboptimal, although I understand you don’t like any of the potential names.
We seriously considered “S-risk Fund” but ultimately decided against because it seems harder to fundraise for from people who are less familiar with advanced EA concepts (e.g., poker pros interested in improving the long-term future).
I think this touches on a serious worry with fundraising from people unfamiliar with EA concepts: why should they donate to your fund rather than another EA fund if they don’t understand the basic goal you are aiming for with your fund?
I can imagine that people donate to the EAF fund for social reasons (e.g. you happen to be well-connected to poker players) more than intellectual reasons (i.e. funders donate because they prioritize s-risk reduction). If that is the case, I’d find it problematic that the fund is not clearly named: it makes it less likely that people donate to particular funds for the right reasons.
Of course, this is part of a larger coordination problem in which all kinds of non-intellectual reasons are driving donation decisions. I am not sure what the ideal solution is*, but I wanted to flag this issue.
*Perhaps it should be a best practice for EA fundraisers to always recommend funders to all go through a (to be created) donation decision tool that takes them through some of the relevant questions. That tool would be a bit like the flowchart from the Global Priorities Project, but more user-friendly.
why should they donate to your fund rather than another EA fund if they don’t understand the basic goal you are aiming for with your fund?
We always point out that the fund is focused on reducing suffering in the long-term future.
Also, why should they donate to that other fund instead? E.g., the Long-Term Future Fund is also importantly motivated by “astronomical waste” type considerations which those donors don’t understand either, and might not agree with.
I can imagine that people donate to the EAF fund for social reasons (e.g. you happen to be well-connected to poker players) more than intellectual reasons (i.e. funders donate because they prioritize s-risk reduction).
Yeah. This will always be the case with many donors, regardless of which fund they donate to.
Of course, this is part of a larger coordination problem in which all kinds of non-intellectual reasons are driving donation decisions.
I wouldn’t call it a coordination problem in the game-theoretic sense, and I think in many cases this actually isn’t even a problem: I think it’s important that donors aren’t deceived into supporting something that they wouldn’t want to support; but in the many cases where donors don’t have informed opinions (e.g., on population ethics), it’s fine if you fill in the details for them with a plausible view held by a significant part of the community.
Perhaps it should be a best practice for EA fundraisers to always recommend funders to all go through a (to be created) donation decision tool that takes them through some of the relevant questions.
I think we’d be open to doing something like this.
We always point out that the fund is focused on reducing suffering in the long-term future.
Also, why should they donate to that other fund instead? E.g., the Long-Term Future Fund is also importantly motivated by “astronomical waste” type considerations which those donors don’t understand either, and might not agree with.
Yes, I’m not saying you’re misleading your donors, nor that they are less informed than donors of other funds. Just that there are many reasons people are donating to a particular fund, and I think properly naming a fund is a step in the right direction.
I wouldn’t call it a coordination problem in the game-theoretic sense
I see it as coordination between different fund managers, where each wants to maximize the amount of funds for their own fund. As such, there are some incentives to not maximally inform one’s donors if other funding possibilities, or the best arguments against donating to the fund they are fundraising for.
I’m not saying that this type of selfish behavior is very present in the EA community—I’ve heard that it is quite the opposite. But I do think that the situation is not yet optimal: current allocation of resources is not based largely on careful weighing the relevant evidence and arguments. I also think we can move closer to this optimal allocation.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to make this into a large debate :) I’m glad the fund exists and I’d be happy if the name changes to something more distinguishable!
Thanks! I see the point better now. While I don’t fully agree with everything, I think it could make sense to rename the fund if/once we have a good idea.
I still perceive it as suboptimal, although I understand you don’t like any of the potential names.
I think this touches on a serious worry with fundraising from people unfamiliar with EA concepts: why should they donate to your fund rather than another EA fund if they don’t understand the basic goal you are aiming for with your fund?
I can imagine that people donate to the EAF fund for social reasons (e.g. you happen to be well-connected to poker players) more than intellectual reasons (i.e. funders donate because they prioritize s-risk reduction). If that is the case, I’d find it problematic that the fund is not clearly named: it makes it less likely that people donate to particular funds for the right reasons.
Of course, this is part of a larger coordination problem in which all kinds of non-intellectual reasons are driving donation decisions. I am not sure what the ideal solution is*, but I wanted to flag this issue.
*Perhaps it should be a best practice for EA fundraisers to always recommend funders to all go through a (to be created) donation decision tool that takes them through some of the relevant questions. That tool would be a bit like the flowchart from the Global Priorities Project, but more user-friendly.
We always point out that the fund is focused on reducing suffering in the long-term future.
Also, why should they donate to that other fund instead? E.g., the Long-Term Future Fund is also importantly motivated by “astronomical waste” type considerations which those donors don’t understand either, and might not agree with.
Yeah. This will always be the case with many donors, regardless of which fund they donate to.
I wouldn’t call it a coordination problem in the game-theoretic sense, and I think in many cases this actually isn’t even a problem: I think it’s important that donors aren’t deceived into supporting something that they wouldn’t want to support; but in the many cases where donors don’t have informed opinions (e.g., on population ethics), it’s fine if you fill in the details for them with a plausible view held by a significant part of the community.
I think we’d be open to doing something like this.
Yes, I’m not saying you’re misleading your donors, nor that they are less informed than donors of other funds. Just that there are many reasons people are donating to a particular fund, and I think properly naming a fund is a step in the right direction.
I see it as coordination between different fund managers, where each wants to maximize the amount of funds for their own fund. As such, there are some incentives to not maximally inform one’s donors if other funding possibilities, or the best arguments against donating to the fund they are fundraising for.
I’m not saying that this type of selfish behavior is very present in the EA community—I’ve heard that it is quite the opposite. But I do think that the situation is not yet optimal: current allocation of resources is not based largely on careful weighing the relevant evidence and arguments. I also think we can move closer to this optimal allocation.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to make this into a large debate :) I’m glad the fund exists and I’d be happy if the name changes to something more distinguishable!
Thanks! I see the point better now. While I don’t fully agree with everything, I think it could make sense to rename the fund if/once we have a good idea.