Re the grand “does individual giving/etg still matter post Anthropic IPO” question:
I think it pushes towards individuals acting more like grantmakers themselves. Anthropic billionaires don’t know about your Twitter follower who could do something great with $1k and they aren’t gonna have the capacity to find out, but you do!
There are just a lot of freedoms one has as an individual donor who isn’t a public figure:
You…
Don’t have to justify yourself on the EA Forum to friends and colleagues for something illegible
Know about lots of random things that others don’t, like which of your friends you trust to do a good job at X Y or Z
Don’t have to worry about smear campaigns or hostile journalists bc nobody is going to know or care how you spent $2k
Can own whatever reputational stuff there is if you want to (or not, your call)
Probably don’t have to worry about the community-level effects of some policy unless you’re giving away say at least 6 figures/year and probably more like 7
Can set arbitrary terms and conditions like “here’s a bounty that I’ll pay out at my own discretion”
Don’t have to worry about giving some project or other entity any sort of reputation
Regrant to your trusted friend who finds micro-granting fun and interesting
Probably can do other cool things I’m not thinking of rn
Also: the same dynamic between Anthropic ~billionaires and folks reading this as a group also holds within that latter group: there are diminishing returns even at low margins so Jane Street should look a little less good than it used to (still pretty good tbc) and “having a couple thousand bucks around and being on the lookout for one-off opportunities” should seem a bit better than it used to.
Agree with the spirit of this, but I’d flag that I think it’s very important to be mindful of reputational/downside risks for the EA movement. In my view, with more money (realized and prospective), the value of community integrity becomes even higher.
An example of post-IPO retail philanthropy I’m excited about is giving a friend $5k to take time off and apply to high-impact jobs. As Aaron writes, individuals know about opportunities that large funders don’t!
An example of post-IPO retail philanthropy I worry about is paying for an antagonistic media campaign against [X factory farm owner or public figure], which institutional funders could have chosen to fund but decided against due to reputational risk. If the funding is traced back to you, the movement’s reputation could be damaged by association. Even if it isn’t, new large funders may be dissuaded from getting involved if they see antagonistic or risky actions being funded in areas related to EA.
Re the grand “does individual giving/etg still matter post Anthropic IPO” question:
I think it pushes towards individuals acting more like grantmakers themselves. Anthropic billionaires don’t know about your Twitter follower who could do something great with $1k and they aren’t gonna have the capacity to find out, but you do!
There are just a lot of freedoms one has as an individual donor who isn’t a public figure:
You…
Don’t have to justify yourself on the EA Forum to friends and colleagues for something illegible
Know about lots of random things that others don’t, like which of your friends you trust to do a good job at X Y or Z
Don’t have to worry about smear campaigns or hostile journalists bc nobody is going to know or care how you spent $2k
Can own whatever reputational stuff there is if you want to (or not, your call)
Probably don’t have to worry about the community-level effects of some policy unless you’re giving away say at least 6 figures/year and probably more like 7
Can set arbitrary terms and conditions like “here’s a bounty that I’ll pay out at my own discretion”
Don’t have to worry about giving some project or other entity any sort of reputation
Regrant to your trusted friend who finds micro-granting fun and interesting
Probably can do other cool things I’m not thinking of rn
Also: the same dynamic between Anthropic ~billionaires and folks reading this as a group also holds within that latter group: there are diminishing returns even at low margins so Jane Street should look a little less good than it used to (still pretty good tbc) and “having a couple thousand bucks around and being on the lookout for one-off opportunities” should seem a bit better than it used to.
Agree with the spirit of this, but I’d flag that I think it’s very important to be mindful of reputational/downside risks for the EA movement. In my view, with more money (realized and prospective), the value of community integrity becomes even higher.
An example of post-IPO retail philanthropy I’m excited about is giving a friend $5k to take time off and apply to high-impact jobs. As Aaron writes, individuals know about opportunities that large funders don’t!
An example of post-IPO retail philanthropy I worry about is paying for an antagonistic media campaign against [X factory farm owner or public figure], which institutional funders could have chosen to fund but decided against due to reputational risk. If the funding is traced back to you, the movement’s reputation could be damaged by association. Even if it isn’t, new large funders may be dissuaded from getting involved if they see antagonistic or risky actions being funded in areas related to EA.