Open Phil has seemingly movedaway from funding ‘frontier of weirdness’-type projects and cause areas; I therefore think a hole has opened up that EAIF is well-placed to fill. In particular, I think an FHI 2.0 of some sort (perhaps starting small and scaling up if it’s going well) could be hugely valuable, and that finding a leader for this new org could fit in with your ‘running specific application rounds to fund people to work on [particularly valuable projects].’
My sense is that an FHI 2.0 grant would align well with EAIF’s scope. Quoting from your announcement post for your new scope:
Examples of projects that I (Caleb) would be excited for this fund [EAIF] to support
A program that puts particularly thoughtful researchers who want to investigate speculative but potentially important considerations (like acausal trade and ethics of digital minds) in the same physical space and gives them stipends—ideally with mentorship and potentially an emphasis on collaboration.
…
Foundational research into big, if true, areas that aren’t currently receiving much attention (e.g. post-AGI governance, ECL, wild animal suffering, suffering of current AI systems).
Having said this, I imagine that you saw Habryka’s ‘FHI of the West’ proposal from six months ago. The fact that that has not already been funded, and that talk around it has died down, makes me wonder if you have already ruled out funding such a project. (If so, I’d be curious as to why, though of course no obligation on you to explain yourself.)
Thanks for the suggestion—I read the proposal a while ago, and hadn’t thought about it recently, so it’s good to be reminded of it again.
The fact that that has not already been funded, and that talk around it has died down, makes me wonder if you have already ruled out funding such a project.
We haven’t decided against funding projects like this. (EAIF’s grantmaking historically has been very passive—eg. the projects that we end up considering for funding has been determined by the applications we received. And we haven’t received any strong applications in the ‘FHI of the West’ ballpark—at least as far as I’m aware)
One possible concern with this idea is that the project would probably take a lot of funding to launch. With Open Phil’s financial distancing from EA Funds, my guess is that EAIF may often not be in the ideal position to be an early funder of a seven-figure-a-year project, by which I mean one that comes on board earlier than individual major funders.
I can envision some cases in which EAIF might be a better fit for seed funding, such as cases where funding would allow further development or preliminary testing of a big-project proposal to the point it could be better evaluated by funders who can consistently offer mid-six figures plus a year. It’s unclear how well that would describe something like the FHI/West proposal, though.
I could easily be wrong (or there could already be enough major funder interest to alleviate the first paragraph concern), and a broader discussion about EAIF’s comparative advantages / disadvantages for various project characteristics might be helpful in any event.
Open Phil has seemingly moved away from funding ‘frontier of weirdness’-type projects and cause areas; I therefore think a hole has opened up that EAIF is well-placed to fill. In particular, I think an FHI 2.0 of some sort (perhaps starting small and scaling up if it’s going well) could be hugely valuable, and that finding a leader for this new org could fit in with your ‘running specific application rounds to fund people to work on [particularly valuable projects].’
My sense is that an FHI 2.0 grant would align well with EAIF’s scope. Quoting from your announcement post for your new scope:
Having said this, I imagine that you saw Habryka’s ‘FHI of the West’ proposal from six months ago. The fact that that has not already been funded, and that talk around it has died down, makes me wonder if you have already ruled out funding such a project. (If so, I’d be curious as to why, though of course no obligation on you to explain yourself.)
Thanks for the suggestion—I read the proposal a while ago, and hadn’t thought about it recently, so it’s good to be reminded of it again.
We haven’t decided against funding projects like this. (EAIF’s grantmaking historically has been very passive—eg. the projects that we end up considering for funding has been determined by the applications we received. And we haven’t received any strong applications in the ‘FHI of the West’ ballpark—at least as far as I’m aware)
One possible concern with this idea is that the project would probably take a lot of funding to launch. With Open Phil’s financial distancing from EA Funds, my guess is that EAIF may often not be in the ideal position to be an early funder of a seven-figure-a-year project, by which I mean one that comes on board earlier than individual major funders.
I can envision some cases in which EAIF might be a better fit for seed funding, such as cases where funding would allow further development or preliminary testing of a big-project proposal to the point it could be better evaluated by funders who can consistently offer mid-six figures plus a year. It’s unclear how well that would describe something like the FHI/West proposal, though.
I could easily be wrong (or there could already be enough major funder interest to alleviate the first paragraph concern), and a broader discussion about EAIF’s comparative advantages / disadvantages for various project characteristics might be helpful in any event.