“Oliver, I, and potentially other LTFF staff will participate in the first round, so routing this money through the Commons means the remaining LTFF balance is still allocated in part by the judgement of the LTFF fund managers at the time the donors made their donation. To avoid any perception of conflict of interest, Lightcone has agreed to waive its administrative fees on this transaction, so the 3% platform fee and 2% evaluator fee will not be charged on the LTFF contribution.”
I think this is a good move, but I think there will remain many genuine conflicts of interests in these grants (which is both inevitable and OK as long as its recognised). Conflict of interest is about more than admin fees—more importantly its about bias towards where money gets allocated. Given how small the field is I’m sure many who get allocated money will be friends and former colleagues of those given the money, whether its former LTFF or Lightcone staff who are giving the money.
I’m not sure how using Lightcone Commons increases grantmaking-related conflicts of interest compared with the normal LTFF process, but I agree that conflicts of interest are very common in grantmaking.
Yeah it might not increase that much or at all (although perhaps lightcone folks are more connected to doers the fund might be funding, which would increase conflict of interest). My point was that especially in AI grantmaking where the field is small, I think it might always be too strong/incorrect to say there might not be even “the perception of conflict of interest”
Conflict of interest is not necessarily a big problem and probably completely unavoidable in the AI safety sphere, but I think it’s good to be honest that it’s a reality.
“Oliver, I, and potentially other LTFF staff will participate in the first round, so routing this money through the Commons means the remaining LTFF balance is still allocated in part by the judgement of the LTFF fund managers at the time the donors made their donation. To avoid any perception of conflict of interest, Lightcone has agreed to waive its administrative fees on this transaction, so the 3% platform fee and 2% evaluator fee will not be charged on the LTFF contribution.”
I think this is a good move, but I think there will remain many genuine conflicts of interests in these grants (which is both inevitable and OK as long as its recognised). Conflict of interest is about more than admin fees—more importantly its about bias towards where money gets allocated. Given how small the field is I’m sure many who get allocated money will be friends and former colleagues of those given the money, whether its former LTFF or Lightcone staff who are giving the money.
I’m not sure how using Lightcone Commons increases grantmaking-related conflicts of interest compared with the normal LTFF process, but I agree that conflicts of interest are very common in grantmaking.
Yeah it might not increase that much or at all (although perhaps lightcone folks are more connected to doers the fund might be funding, which would increase conflict of interest). My point was that especially in AI grantmaking where the field is small, I think it might always be too strong/incorrect to say there might not be even “the perception of conflict of interest”
Conflict of interest is not necessarily a big problem and probably completely unavoidable in the AI safety sphere, but I think it’s good to be honest that it’s a reality.