I was going to mention this post as well, to summarize it: Open Phil has deliberately lowered their transparency levels on the grants they make because unlike GiveWell they arenât making direct recommendations to the public and because the projects are too complex/âwould take too many resources to justify/âsharing information would have âprogrammatic risksâ, and they wouldnât be able to be completely transparent.
So Open Phil has actively moved away from public discussion. Given the feedback process for the Long Term Funds recently, I can understand this decision, although if it wasnât so research intensive Iâd like to see more write-ups, especially for US policy grants. I think international opportunities (not just global health but on a whole plethora of issues) are very neglected and tractable, but currently there is an overwhelming focus on NTDâs (mainly GiveWellâs research). Iâm assuming Open Phil doesnât want to crowd out/âdouble up on GiveWellâs research, or because of Good Venturesâ interests. I predict these international opportunities will become less neglected as EA reaches developing countries and is able to incubate local EAâs who have comparative advantage in those areas.
The flipside of less transparency is that Open Phil has been doing the most active recruiting over the last two years within EA, and so itâs position as such is relatively strong in the community, not just in terms of money but also from a careers perspective.
I was going to mention this post as well, to summarize it: Open Phil has deliberately lowered their transparency levels on the grants they make because unlike GiveWell they arenât making direct recommendations to the public and because the projects are too complex/âwould take too many resources to justify/âsharing information would have âprogrammatic risksâ, and they wouldnât be able to be completely transparent.
So Open Phil has actively moved away from public discussion. Given the feedback process for the Long Term Funds recently, I can understand this decision, although if it wasnât so research intensive Iâd like to see more write-ups, especially for US policy grants. I think international opportunities (not just global health but on a whole plethora of issues) are very neglected and tractable, but currently there is an overwhelming focus on NTDâs (mainly GiveWellâs research). Iâm assuming Open Phil doesnât want to crowd out/âdouble up on GiveWellâs research, or because of Good Venturesâ interests. I predict these international opportunities will become less neglected as EA reaches developing countries and is able to incubate local EAâs who have comparative advantage in those areas.
The flipside of less transparency is that Open Phil has been doing the most active recruiting over the last two years within EA, and so itâs position as such is relatively strong in the community, not just in terms of money but also from a careers perspective.