On the writing style: I did use ChatGPT as an editorial tool for structure and phrasing.
On the second point: I agree that EA absolutely talks about talent, coordination, and institutional bottlenecks not just money. My argument was narrower than perhaps the opening suggests.
I was responding explicitly about navigating a potential influx of capital, and trying to argue that even in a world with much more funding, mechanism design may matter more than additional grant-making in some domains.
The kidney shortage (that we are working hard to end) presents a case study because it’s a place where enormous resources already exist (billions spent on dialysis), but poor institutional design prevents those resources from producing better outcomes.
So I agree the opening could have been more precise. The stronger version of the claim is probably:
“Even when funding is abundant, poorly designed systems can still produce scarcity.”
This is relevant both to kidney policy and to EA more broadly.
Please consider signing our petition to help get the End Kidney Deaths Act to the finish line. 100,000 Americans (the total number that will be saved over the ten year pilot program) are relying on us to save their lives. https://forms.gle/rVmseMDioZmazLQXA
“Even when funding is abundant, poorly designed systems can still produce scarcity.”
This is a real concern, even more if EA funding grows faster than the infrastructure to spend the money wisely.
But.
I think you used too much chatGPT to the point where it’s not an editorial tool and it compromised the intelligibility of the post.
Afaiu, you have 2 main points in your post:
Kidney deaths as a case study on how money is not the only bottleneck.
CTA: please support our petition.
Both reasonable and interesting. But hard to parse from the AI aesthetic fillers.
And also, the Manifund post explicitly asks for how to / what systems we need to navigate having more money. I think you are preaching to the choir when you say that systems can be more important than sheer amounts of money.
Thanks for the fair critiques.
On the writing style: I did use ChatGPT as an editorial tool for structure and phrasing.
On the second point: I agree that EA absolutely talks about talent, coordination, and institutional bottlenecks not just money. My argument was narrower than perhaps the opening suggests.
I was responding explicitly about navigating a potential influx of capital, and trying to argue that even in a world with much more funding, mechanism design may matter more than additional grant-making in some domains.
The kidney shortage (that we are working hard to end) presents a case study because it’s a place where enormous resources already exist (billions spent on dialysis), but poor institutional design prevents those resources from producing better outcomes.
So I agree the opening could have been more precise. The stronger version of the claim is probably:
“Even when funding is abundant, poorly designed systems can still produce scarcity.”
This is relevant both to kidney policy and to EA more broadly.
Please consider signing our petition to help get the End Kidney Deaths Act to the finish line. 100,000 Americans (the total number that will be saved over the ten year pilot program) are relying on us to save their lives. https://forms.gle/rVmseMDioZmazLQXA
I like your point
“Even when funding is abundant, poorly designed systems can still produce scarcity.”
This is a real concern, even more if EA funding grows faster than the infrastructure to spend the money wisely.
But.
I think you used too much chatGPT to the point where it’s not an editorial tool and it compromised the intelligibility of the post.
Afaiu, you have 2 main points in your post:
Kidney deaths as a case study on how money is not the only bottleneck.
CTA: please support our petition.
Both reasonable and interesting. But hard to parse from the AI aesthetic fillers.
And also, the Manifund post explicitly asks for how to / what systems we need to navigate having more money. I think you are preaching to the choir when you say that systems can be more important than sheer amounts of money.