I think that Jack is overall making solid argument with the intent of the overall betterment of the EA community and ecosystem. Multiple things can be true:
Cold emailing, especially done well, can sometimes be successful for an individual org;
Cold emailing will build less trust with a potential funder than being recommended by an individual or organisation they already trust;
Most people will be annoyed by receiving 20 unsolicited email a week asking for money;
It may be unfair to dismiss cold emailing completely, but it’s likely a good idea to discourage it in the current and future climate.
From everything I’ve seen it seems like a huge amount of money is going to come in the EA space. The last time that happened it didn’t go too well. And from what I’ve read whilst a bunch of people have suggestions on how to approach this, no one has the complete solution. For me personally I feel very excited by the possibility of what we can do with these funds, but simultaneously nervous about it not going well.
We have an absolutely incredible opportunity to do good here. With this opportunity must come a recognition that we should strive towards the highest standards possible. We as a community must try to do what is good for the community as a whole and the causes we are attempting to serve, rather than just what is individually good for ourselves or our organisations.
I believe that the ‘existing gatekeepers’ of EA, organisations such as CEA and Coefficient Giving – and yes, other funders like Ultra Philanthropy – have done so much to help build this community, and done it so well. Yes, it’s in Jack’s incentive for him to say that it’s better for the incoming funds to go through a trusted funding organisation such as his own. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong. I think he’s likely right.
As a community we want money to be going towards projects that do the most amount of good per dollar spent. There are a number of organisations in the EA community – the ‘middlemen’ – who’s whole purpose is to try and figure this often very difficult question out. I think fundamentally they are going to a lot better at answering this question than an Anthropic employee who has been sent a cold email.
If we want to have confidence that the money donated is going towards the most cost-effective interventions on the highest priority causes, we should initially trust the existing trusted organisations, as well as work to both expand their capacity and create new trusted funders with additional capacity.
I think that Jack is overall making solid argument with the intent of the overall betterment of the EA community and ecosystem. Multiple things can be true:
Cold emailing, especially done well, can sometimes be successful for an individual org;
Cold emailing will build less trust with a potential funder than being recommended by an individual or organisation they already trust;
Most people will be annoyed by receiving 20 unsolicited email a week asking for money;
It may be unfair to dismiss cold emailing completely, but it’s likely a good idea to discourage it in the current and future climate.
From everything I’ve seen it seems like a huge amount of money is going to come in the EA space. The last time that happened it didn’t go too well. And from what I’ve read whilst a bunch of people have suggestions on how to approach this, no one has the complete solution. For me personally I feel very excited by the possibility of what we can do with these funds, but simultaneously nervous about it not going well.
We have an absolutely incredible opportunity to do good here. With this opportunity must come a recognition that we should strive towards the highest standards possible. We as a community must try to do what is good for the community as a whole and the causes we are attempting to serve, rather than just what is individually good for ourselves or our organisations.
I believe that the ‘existing gatekeepers’ of EA, organisations such as CEA and Coefficient Giving – and yes, other funders like Ultra Philanthropy – have done so much to help build this community, and done it so well. Yes, it’s in Jack’s incentive for him to say that it’s better for the incoming funds to go through a trusted funding organisation such as his own. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong. I think he’s likely right.
As a community we want money to be going towards projects that do the most amount of good per dollar spent. There are a number of organisations in the EA community – the ‘middlemen’ – who’s whole purpose is to try and figure this often very difficult question out. I think fundamentally they are going to a lot better at answering this question than an Anthropic employee who has been sent a cold email.
If we want to have confidence that the money donated is going towards the most cost-effective interventions on the highest priority causes, we should initially trust the existing trusted organisations, as well as work to both expand their capacity and create new trusted funders with additional capacity.