I understand posting this here, but for following up specific cases like this, especially second hand I think it’s better to first contact OpenPhil before airing it publicly. Like you mentioned there is likely to be much context here we don’t have, and it’s hard to have a public discussion without most of the context.
“There is probably some more delicate way I could have handled this, but anything more complicated than writing this comment, would probably have ended up with me not taking action at all”
That’s a fair comment I understand the importance of overcoming the bent toward inaction, but I feel like even sending this exact message you posted here to OpenPhil first might have been a better start to the conversation.
And even if it was to be posted, I think it may be better to come from the people directly involved Even if pseudo anonymously (open Phil would know who it was probably) rather than a third party.
I say this with fairly low confidence. I appreciate the benefits of transparency as well and I appreciate overcoming the inertia of doing nothing as well, which I agree is probably worse.
I think it’s better to first contact OpenPhil [OP] before airing it publicly
I tend to agree. At least based on my experience, people at OP are reasonably responsive. Here are my success rates privately contacting people at OP[1] (“successful attempts[2]”/”attempts[3]”):
There are benefit of having this discussion in public, regardless of how responsive OpenPhil staff are.
By posting this publicly I already found out that they did the same to Neal Nanda. Neal though that in his case he though this was “extremely reasonable”. I’m not sure why and I’ve just asked some follow up questions.
I get from your response that you think 45% is good response record, but that depends on how you look at it. In the reference class of major grantmakers it’s not bad, and don’t think OpenPhil is dong something wrong for not responding to more email. They have other important work to do. But, I also have other important work to do. I’m also not doing anything wrong by not spending extra time figuring out who at their staff to contact and send a private email, which according to your data, has a 55% chance ending up ignored.
There are benefit of having this discussion in public, regardless of how responsive OpenPhil staff are.
I agree. I was not clear. I meant that, for this case, I think “public criticism after private criticism” > “public criticism before private criticism” > “public criticism without private criticism” > “private criticism without public criticism”. So I am glad you commented if the alternative was no comment at all.
I get from your response that you think 45% is good response record, but that depends on how you look at it. In the reference class of major grantmakers it’s not bad, and don’t think OpenPhil is dong something wrong for not responding to more email.
Yes, I would say the response rate is good enough to justify getting in touch (unless we are talking about people who consistently did not reply to past emails). At the same time, I actually think people at Open Phil might be doing something wrong by not replying to some of my emails assuming they read them, because it is possible to reply to an email in 10 s. For example, by saying something like “Thanks. Sorry, but I do not plan to look into this.”. I guess people assume this is as bad or worse than no reply, but I would rather have a short reply, so I suppose I should clarify this in future emails.
I understand posting this here, but for following up specific cases like this, especially second hand I think it’s better to first contact OpenPhil before airing it publicly. Like you mentioned there is likely to be much context here we don’t have, and it’s hard to have a public discussion without most of the context.
“There is probably some more delicate way I could have handled this, but anything more complicated than writing this comment, would probably have ended up with me not taking action at all”
That’s a fair comment I understand the importance of overcoming the bent toward inaction, but I feel like even sending this exact message you posted here to OpenPhil first might have been a better start to the conversation.
And even if it was to be posted, I think it may be better to come from the people directly involved Even if pseudo anonymously (open Phil would know who it was probably) rather than a third party.
I say this with fairly low confidence. I appreciate the benefits of transparency as well and I appreciate overcoming the inertia of doing nothing as well, which I agree is probably worse.
Thanks for the comment, Nick!
I tend to agree. At least based on my experience, people at OP are reasonably responsive. Here are my success rates privately contacting people at OP[1] (“successful attempts[2]”/”attempts[3]”):
All: 52.4 % (22/42).
Aaron Gertler: 100 % (1/1).
Ajeya Cotra: 0 (0/1).
Andrew Snyder-Beattie: 100 % (1/1).
Alexander Berger: 20 % (1/5).
Ben Stewart: 100 % (1/1).
Cash Callaghan: 0 (0/1).
Claire Zabel: 0 (0/3).
Damon Binder: 0 (0/3).
Derek Hopf: 100 % (2/2).
Harshdeep Singh: 0 (0/1).
Heather Youngs: 0 (0/2).
Holden Karnofsky: 100 % (3/3).
Howie Lempel: 100 % (1/1).
Jacob Trefethen: 0 (0/1).
James Snowden: 0 (0/1).
Jason Schukraft: 100 % (2/2).
Lewis Bollard: 80 % (4/5).
Luca Righetti: 100 % (2/2).
Luke Muehlhauser: 0 (0/1).
Matt Clancy: 0 (0/1).
Philip Zealley: 100 % (1/1).
Rossa O’Keeffe-O’Donovan: 100 % (1/1).
Will Sorflaten: 100 % (2/2).
Last updated on 22 April 2024.
At least 1 reply.
Counting as a single attempt multiple ones respecting the same topic.
There are benefit of having this discussion in public, regardless of how responsive OpenPhil staff are.
By posting this publicly I already found out that they did the same to Neal Nanda. Neal though that in his case he though this was “extremely reasonable”. I’m not sure why and I’ve just asked some follow up questions.
I get from your response that you think 45% is good response record, but that depends on how you look at it. In the reference class of major grantmakers it’s not bad, and don’t think OpenPhil is dong something wrong for not responding to more email. They have other important work to do. But, I also have other important work to do. I’m also not doing anything wrong by not spending extra time figuring out who at their staff to contact and send a private email, which according to your data, has a 55% chance ending up ignored.
I agree. I was not clear. I meant that, for this case, I think “public criticism after private criticism” > “public criticism before private criticism” > “public criticism without private criticism” > “private criticism without public criticism”. So I am glad you commented if the alternative was no comment at all.
Yes, I would say the response rate is good enough to justify getting in touch (unless we are talking about people who consistently did not reply to past emails). At the same time, I actually think people at Open Phil might be doing something wrong by not replying to some of my emails assuming they read them, because it is possible to reply to an email in 10 s. For example, by saying something like “Thanks. Sorry, but I do not plan to look into this.”. I guess people assume this is as bad or worse than no reply, but I would rather have a short reply, so I suppose I should clarify this in future emails.