To clarify, I did see the invitations to other funders. However, my perception was that those are invitations to find people to hand things off to, rather than to be a continuing partner like with GV.
This was also my impression. To the extent that the reason why OP doesn’t want to fund something is because of PR risks & energy/time/attention costs, it’s a bit surprising that OP would partner with another group to fund something.
Perhaps the idea here is that the PR/energy/time/attention costs would be split between orgs? And that this would outweigh the costs of coordinating with another group?
Or it’s just that OP feels better if OP doesn’t have to spend its own money on something? Perhaps because of funding constraints?
I’m also a bit confused about scenarios where OP wouldn’t fund X for PR reasons but would want some other EA group to fund X. It seems to me like the PR attacks against the EA movement would be just as strong– perhaps OP as an institution could distance itself, but from an altruistic standpoint that wouldn’t matter much. (I do see how OP would want to not fund something for energy/capacity reasons but then be OK with some other funder focusing on that space.)
In general, I feel like communication from OP could have been clearer in a lot of the comments. Or OP could’ve done a “meta thing” just making it explicit that they don’t currently want to share more details.
In the post above we (twice!) invited outreach from other funders
But EG phrasing like this makes me wonder if OP believes it’s communicating clearly and is genuinely baffled when commentators have (what I see as quite reasonable) misunderstandings or confusions.
I’m confused about what you’re saying here. It feels like maybe you’re conflating OP with GV? (Which may be functionally a reasonable approximation 99% of the time, but gets in the way of the point of the conversation here in the 1%.) e.g. at one point you say “better if OP doesn’t have to spend its own money”, but as far as I understand things, to a first approximation Open Philanthropy doesn’t have any money; rather, Good Ventures does.
+1 to Alexander’s POV
This was also my impression. To the extent that the reason why OP doesn’t want to fund something is because of PR risks & energy/time/attention costs, it’s a bit surprising that OP would partner with another group to fund something.
Perhaps the idea here is that the PR/energy/time/attention costs would be split between orgs? And that this would outweigh the costs of coordinating with another group?
Or it’s just that OP feels better if OP doesn’t have to spend its own money on something? Perhaps because of funding constraints?
I’m also a bit confused about scenarios where OP wouldn’t fund X for PR reasons but would want some other EA group to fund X. It seems to me like the PR attacks against the EA movement would be just as strong– perhaps OP as an institution could distance itself, but from an altruistic standpoint that wouldn’t matter much. (I do see how OP would want to not fund something for energy/capacity reasons but then be OK with some other funder focusing on that space.)
In general, I feel like communication from OP could have been clearer in a lot of the comments. Or OP could’ve done a “meta thing” just making it explicit that they don’t currently want to share more details.
But EG phrasing like this makes me wonder if OP believes it’s communicating clearly and is genuinely baffled when commentators have (what I see as quite reasonable) misunderstandings or confusions.
I’m confused about what you’re saying here. It feels like maybe you’re conflating OP with GV? (Which may be functionally a reasonable approximation 99% of the time, but gets in the way of the point of the conversation here in the 1%.) e.g. at one point you say “better if OP doesn’t have to spend its own money”, but as far as I understand things, to a first approximation Open Philanthropy doesn’t have any money; rather, Good Ventures does.
oops yup— was conflating and my comment makes less sense once the conflation goes away. good catch!