Note that it may be hard to give criticism (even if anonymous) about FTX’s grantmaking because a lot of FTX’s grantmaking is (currently) not disclosed. This is definitely understandable and likely avoids certain important downsides, but it also does amplify other downsides (e.g., public misunderstanding of FTX’s goals and outputs) - I’m not sure how to navigate that trade-off, but it is important to acknowledge that it exists!
This seems slightly cryptic. Have you considered following the style and norms of other comments on the forum?
although, to be frank, it does make me a bit confused where some of the consternation about specific, unspecified grants has come from...
If your comment is about public sentiment around FTX grant decisions, there doesn’t seem to be public knowledge of grants actually made. So it doesn’t seem like there could be informed public opinion of the actual results.
(If you are signaling/referencing some private discussion, this point doesn’t apply.)
Completely agree! Although I imagine that the situation will change soon due to 1) last funding decisions being finalized 2) funded projects coming out of stealth mode 3) more rejected applicants posting their applications publicly (when there are few downsides to doing so) 4) the Future Fund publishes a progress report in the next months.
So I expect the non-disclosure issue to be significantly reduced in the next few months.
Note that it may be hard to give criticism (even if anonymous) about FTX’s grantmaking because a lot of FTX’s grantmaking is (currently) not disclosed. This is definitely understandable and likely avoids certain important downsides, but it also does amplify other downsides (e.g., public misunderstanding of FTX’s goals and outputs) - I’m not sure how to navigate that trade-off, but it is important to acknowledge that it exists!
Totally agreed!
although, to be frank, it does make me a bit confused where some of the consternation about specific, unspecified grants has come from...
This seems slightly cryptic. Have you considered following the style and norms of other comments on the forum?
If your comment is about public sentiment around FTX grant decisions, there doesn’t seem to be public knowledge of grants actually made. So it doesn’t seem like there could be informed public opinion of the actual results.
(If you are signaling/referencing some private discussion, this point doesn’t apply.)
Weak downvote because “Have you considered following the style and norms of other comments on the forum?” is needlessly rude
Yes, this is fair. The current vote score seems a little harsh though.
Anyways, I just got off a call with a collaborator who was also very excited about my comment—something about “billionaire” and “great doom”.
Yes, strong funding for x-risk is important, but in my opinion, I think there could be greater focus on high quality work more broadly.
oh wow, when I made the comment we were at −1 and +2 respectively, I agree this was a bigger reaction than I was expecting lol
Completely agree! Although I imagine that the situation will change soon due to 1) last funding decisions being finalized 2) funded projects coming out of stealth mode 3) more rejected applicants posting their applications publicly (when there are few downsides to doing so) 4) the Future Fund publishes a progress report in the next months.
So I expect the non-disclosure issue to be significantly reduced in the next few months.