This is interesting. However, this graph is also fairly misleading by putting OpenPhil on the same footing as an individual ETG-funder, although OpenPhil is disbursing wholly 1000x more funds. Maybe you could set edge-widths to correspond to funding volumes? Also, do you think by moving the nodes around you could reduce the extent to which lines cross over each other, to increase clarity?
The same thing about the edge-widths came to my mind. More specifically, I suggest adding labels to the edges to state a rough number of funding. Perhaps it would ideally be an interactive application.
Also, just curious; was there any reason for having Patrick in particular on the top of this? I imagine there were other donors who gave to many of these things.
I suggest adding labels to the edges to state a rough number of funding
I find that remembering the typical grant/donation size of a donor is easier than remembering all the connections between different donors and donees, so having the edges visually represented (without further decorating the edges) captures most of the value of the exercise. I realize that others who don’t follow the EA granting space as closely as I do may feel differently.
Perhaps it would ideally be an interactive application
I don’t have experience making such applications, so I will let someone else do this.
was there any reason for having Patrick in particular on the top of this?
The node positions were chosen by Graphviz, so I didn’t choose to put Patrick on top. I included Patrick because Vipul suggested doing this (I would guess because Patrick was the most available example of an ETG donor who has given to many x-risk charities).
this graph is also fairly misleading by putting OpenPhil on the same footing as an individual ETG-funder, although OpenPhil is disbursing wholly 1000x more funds
See my reply to Ozzie.
Also, do you think by moving the nodes around you could reduce the extent to which lines cross over each other, to increase clarity?
I added three additional graphs that use different layout algorithms in here. I don’t know if they’re any better.
Personal opinion: the circular layout seems more useful. I like that it more clearly demonstrates a) entities that are connected to only one other entity in the graph (example: Inst. Phil. Research is only connected to BERI, Thiel is only connected to MIRI), and b) how many arrows are going into each node (example: it’s easier to see that MIRI has the widest range of supporters of this group, followed by CEA and CFAR).
This is interesting. However, this graph is also fairly misleading by putting OpenPhil on the same footing as an individual ETG-funder, although OpenPhil is disbursing wholly 1000x more funds. Maybe you could set edge-widths to correspond to funding volumes? Also, do you think by moving the nodes around you could reduce the extent to which lines cross over each other, to increase clarity?
The same thing about the edge-widths came to my mind. More specifically, I suggest adding labels to the edges to state a rough number of funding. Perhaps it would ideally be an interactive application.
Also, just curious; was there any reason for having Patrick in particular on the top of this? I imagine there were other donors who gave to many of these things.
Yeah, at a glance the current presentation really makes AI safety look like Patrick’s empire.
I have to say I found this all very funny.
I find that remembering the typical grant/donation size of a donor is easier than remembering all the connections between different donors and donees, so having the edges visually represented (without further decorating the edges) captures most of the value of the exercise. I realize that others who don’t follow the EA granting space as closely as I do may feel differently.
I don’t have experience making such applications, so I will let someone else do this.
The node positions were chosen by Graphviz, so I didn’t choose to put Patrick on top. I included Patrick because Vipul suggested doing this (I would guess because Patrick was the most available example of an ETG donor who has given to many x-risk charities).
+1
The EA funding map I’d most want see would focus on current funding volumes and potential funding volumes:
Giant circle for Open Phil
Small circles for Jaan, Thiel, and Ben Delo (and maybe Vitalik?)
Cloud of tiny circles representing everyone else
See my reply to Ozzie.
I added three additional graphs that use different layout algorithms in here. I don’t know if they’re any better.
Personal opinion: the circular layout seems more useful. I like that it more clearly demonstrates a) entities that are connected to only one other entity in the graph (example: Inst. Phil. Research is only connected to BERI, Thiel is only connected to MIRI), and b) how many arrows are going into each node (example: it’s easier to see that MIRI has the widest range of supporters of this group, followed by CEA and CFAR).