I think founder interest is important, but not that important. For example, Andres from the Shrimp Welfare Project often talks about how he never saw himself running a shrimp charity until he engaged with the arguments as part of the program. Whatās unique about EA is its focus on the problems themselves, and not the existing interests of donors or founders.
I take this āThe world is to big to figure it out in advance, so allow founder interest to guide to which approach you will takeā as a good encapsulation of what youāre arguing, and I disagree. Founder interest is a much less useful signal than the results of careful cost benefit research. Yes weāll always be uncertain, but that doesnāt mean we canāt do better when we think carefully.
Also, separately, I expect that being given a list of charity ideas you donāt have existing interest in and still wanting to pursue the program is a good filter for the humility/ā responsiveness to the actual world that you need to be a good charity founder.
Yes thereās always going to be an Andres where it works out well. And everyone knows AIM has done wellā¦but I think they could have done ten times better. EA could be five to ten times bigger if they would cure the ailment you so love.
The difference between my view and AIM/āEA broadly is the difference between on the ground real life experience in how humans are motivated and an attempt to figure out reality via spreadsheet & analysis in a room. Believe me Iām an EA and I love EA very much. I never digressed to hedging my love by being āEA adjacentā as some. Iāve maintained being fully public EA. Iām not rejecting EAās core project to use science to be more effective in altruism, Iām saying to modify it with some common sense. EA funding all sorts of new charities from 25 year olds with a napkin plan and not seeking veterans is one example. I love the 25 year olds with a napkin, but donāt only do that. Go find some veterans too. Donāt only do six causes each new round at AIM, open it up and do āboth andā, both the new oneās and the ongoing list of past oneās.
Some donors like EAs current narrow way, probably ten times more would like it to be far more pragmatic with deeply experienced field advisors and not only a few researchers in a room calling shots. Both and. EA is religious in its legalism.
By the way, you do a good job here, I appreciate you.
Interesting but Iām still not sureāthere are clearly costs to a āboth andā approach. AIM would be vastly less impactful if most of the founders who joined ignored their list of recommended charities.
However, I am a 25 year-old with a napkin (lol, good phrase)
Appreciate the exchange though, thanks Jeffrey!
PS- draft amnesty week is coming up if you want to lay out your ideas for more people to discuss.
I think founder interest is important, but not that important.
For example, Andres from the Shrimp Welfare Project often talks about how he never saw himself running a shrimp charity until he engaged with the arguments as part of the program. Whatās unique about EA is its focus on the problems themselves, and not the existing interests of donors or founders.
I take this āThe world is to big to figure it out in advance, so allow founder interest to guide to which approach you will takeā as a good encapsulation of what youāre arguing, and I disagree. Founder interest is a much less useful signal than the results of careful cost benefit research. Yes weāll always be uncertain, but that doesnāt mean we canāt do better when we think carefully.
Also, separately, I expect that being given a list of charity ideas you donāt have existing interest in and still wanting to pursue the program is a good filter for the humility/ā responsiveness to the actual world that you need to be a good charity founder.
Yes thereās always going to be an Andres where it works out well. And everyone knows AIM has done wellā¦but I think they could have done ten times better. EA could be five to ten times bigger if they would cure the ailment you so love.
The difference between my view and AIM/āEA broadly is the difference between on the ground real life experience in how humans are motivated and an attempt to figure out reality via spreadsheet & analysis in a room. Believe me Iām an EA and I love EA very much. I never digressed to hedging my love by being āEA adjacentā as some. Iāve maintained being fully public EA. Iām not rejecting EAās core project to use science to be more effective in altruism, Iām saying to modify it with some common sense. EA funding all sorts of new charities from 25 year olds with a napkin plan and not seeking veterans is one example. I love the 25 year olds with a napkin, but donāt only do that. Go find some veterans too. Donāt only do six causes each new round at AIM, open it up and do āboth andā, both the new oneās and the ongoing list of past oneās.
Some donors like EAs current narrow way, probably ten times more would like it to be far more pragmatic with deeply experienced field advisors and not only a few researchers in a room calling shots. Both and. EA is religious in its legalism.
By the way, you do a good job here, I appreciate you.
Interesting but Iām still not sureāthere are clearly costs to a āboth andā approach. AIM would be vastly less impactful if most of the founders who joined ignored their list of recommended charities.
However, I am a 25 year-old with a napkin (lol, good phrase)
Appreciate the exchange though, thanks Jeffrey!
PS- draft amnesty week is coming up if you want to lay out your ideas for more people to discuss.