āSBF established the FTX foundation, which had definite views about what should be funded, and what should not, and used its wealth to push those views on the community. Was FTX funding the most valuable causes? Or was there perhaps an outsized influence of SBFās own beliefs, and the beliefs of those closest to him.ā
I donāt think there is evidence that Dustin Moskovitz, Cari Tuna or SBF had an outsized influece on the types of cause areas that the EA community worked on. Looking at the things that were discussed in the community before and after these donors came in, I canāt see much difference. The ideas of AI safety, longtermism, animal welfare, and global health are pretty old. Iām sure SBF had his own opinions on specific matters and had some influence over ways to evaluate different projects, but nonetheless, I guess the overwhelming majority of the projects funded by SBF would still be funded by the EA community if there were enough resources. My guess is many of the projects initially funded by FTX will still be funded by other donors in the community.
The key words there are āif there were enough resources.ā
As a practical matter, what EA does is inevitably and heavily influenced by what gets funded. That, and what will people think will get funded, influence what gets talked about at conferences, what areas new EAs go into, and so on. And, for the most part, what gets funded is ultimately up to a few people and their delegates.
Imagine a world in which SBF existed (in non-fraudulent form) and the FTX Animal Fund was handing out $150MM a year to animal-welfare organizations and peanuts to longtermism. Iād suggest that EA would already look significantly different than it did in October 2022, and would have looked even more significantly different in October 2027.
I donāt think the original poster is wrong that megadonors have an outsized influence on which cause areas EA is doing significant work in.
āSBF established the FTX foundation, which had definite views about what should be funded, and what should not, and used its wealth to push those views on the community. Was FTX funding the most valuable causes? Or was there perhaps an outsized influence of SBFās own beliefs, and the beliefs of those closest to him.ā
I donāt think there is evidence that Dustin Moskovitz, Cari Tuna or SBF had an outsized influece on the types of cause areas that the EA community worked on. Looking at the things that were discussed in the community before and after these donors came in, I canāt see much difference. The ideas of AI safety, longtermism, animal welfare, and global health are pretty old. Iām sure SBF had his own opinions on specific matters and had some influence over ways to evaluate different projects, but nonetheless, I guess the overwhelming majority of the projects funded by SBF would still be funded by the EA community if there were enough resources. My guess is many of the projects initially funded by FTX will still be funded by other donors in the community.
The key words there are āif there were enough resources.ā
As a practical matter, what EA does is inevitably and heavily influenced by what gets funded. That, and what will people think will get funded, influence what gets talked about at conferences, what areas new EAs go into, and so on. And, for the most part, what gets funded is ultimately up to a few people and their delegates.
Imagine a world in which SBF existed (in non-fraudulent form) and the FTX Animal Fund was handing out $150MM a year to animal-welfare organizations and peanuts to longtermism. Iād suggest that EA would already look significantly different than it did in October 2022, and would have looked even more significantly different in October 2027.
I donāt think the original poster is wrong that megadonors have an outsized influence on which cause areas EA is doing significant work in.