Hey Luke. Great to hear from you. Also thank you for your push back on an earlier draft where I was getting a lot of stuff wrong and leaping to silly conclusions, was super helpful. FWIW I don’t know how much any of this applies to OpenPhil.
Just to pin down on what it is you agree / disagree with:
For what it is worth I also broadly agree with abergal’s reply. The tl;dr of both the original post / abergal’s comment is basically the same: hey it [looks like from the outside/ is the case that] the LTFF is applying a a much higher bar to direct policy work than other work.
I guess the original post also said: Hey we might be leaving a bunch of value on the table with this approach, and here are a few reasons why, and that is a thing to think about. Abergal’s reply did not directly address this although I guess it implied that Abergal is happy with the current status quo and/or doesn’t see value in exploring this topic. So maybe that is the thing you are saying you agree with.
As someone with a fair amount of context on longtermist AI policy-related grantmaking that is and isn’t happening, I’ll just pop in here briefly to say that I broadly disagree with the original post and broadly agree with [https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Xfon9oxyMFv47kFnc/some-concerns-about-policy-work-funding-and-the-long-term?commentId=TEHjaMd9srQtuc2W9](abergal’s reply).
Hey Luke. Great to hear from you. Also thank you for your push back on an earlier draft where I was getting a lot of stuff wrong and leaping to silly conclusions, was super helpful. FWIW I don’t know how much any of this applies to OpenPhil.
Just to pin down on what it is you agree / disagree with:
For what it is worth I also broadly agree with abergal’s reply. The tl;dr of both the original post / abergal’s comment is basically the same: hey it [looks like from the outside/ is the case that] the LTFF is applying a a much higher bar to direct policy work than other work.
I guess the original post also said: Hey we might be leaving a bunch of value on the table with this approach, and here are a few reasons why, and that is a thing to think about. Abergal’s reply did not directly address this although I guess it implied that Abergal is happy with the current status quo and/or doesn’t see value in exploring this topic. So maybe that is the thing you are saying you agree with.