Hmm I guess that goes into a broader discussion, but I don’t think that the EA community profits itself by not including artists and those with skills that aren’t squarely in the conventional Earning to Give purview.
In any case, I think more efforts like this to further impact within the art commerce space is an important contribution. Oftentimes, people will not be able to radically change their vocation and its important to look for opportunities for impact within a framework that someone is able to do in a given time.
Further, I don’t buy the premise that this is not high EV through a combination of direct impact and promoting a model that is potentially high EV.
I don’t think that the EA community profits itself by not including artists and those with skills that aren’t squarely in the conventional Earning to Give purview.
I certainly wouldn’t claim this. Obviously art, in general, is ex ante a very unpromising earning to give path. My suggestion is that we should encourage artists to use their skills in high impact ways.
I don’t buy the premise that this is not high EV through a combination of direct impact and promoting a model that is potentially high EV.
This implies a very weird model. Why would you think this is high EV? Presumably things are neutral to low EV unless proven otherwise via research? Nothing about “a combination of direct impact (??) and promoting a model” innately suggest high EV-which recall is a very high bar for career paths.
Hmm I guess that goes into a broader discussion, but I don’t think that the EA community profits itself by not including artists and those with skills that aren’t squarely in the conventional Earning to Give purview.
In any case, I think more efforts like this to further impact within the art commerce space is an important contribution. Oftentimes, people will not be able to radically change their vocation and its important to look for opportunities for impact within a framework that someone is able to do in a given time.
Further, I don’t buy the premise that this is not high EV through a combination of direct impact and promoting a model that is potentially high EV.
I certainly wouldn’t claim this. Obviously art, in general, is ex ante a very unpromising earning to give path. My suggestion is that we should encourage artists to use their skills in high impact ways.
This implies a very weird model. Why would you think this is high EV? Presumably things are neutral to low EV unless proven otherwise via research? Nothing about “a combination of direct impact (??) and promoting a model” innately suggest high EV-which recall is a very high bar for career paths.