At a high level, l I’m of the opinion that we practice better reasoning transparency than ~all EA funding sources outside of global health, e.g. a) I’m responding to your thread here and other people have not, b) (I think) people can have a decent model of what we actually do rather than just an amorphous positive impression, and c) I make an effort of politely deliveringmessages that most grantmakers are aware of but don’t say because they’re worried about flack.
It’s really not obvious that this is the best use of limited resources compared to e.g. engaging with large donors directly or having very polished outwards-facing content, but I do think criticizing our lack of public output is odd given that we invest more in it than almost anybody else.
(I do wonder if there’s an effect where because we communicate our overall views so much, we become a more obvious/noticeable target to criticize.)
This illustrates CE shares much more information about the interventions they support than EA Funds’ shares about the grants for which there are longer write-ups. So it is possible to have a better picture of CE’s work than EA Funds’. This is not to say CE’s donors actually have a better picture of CE’s work than EA Funds’ donors have of EA Funds’ work. I do not know how whether CE’s donors look into their reports.
Well, I haven’t read CE’s reports. Have you?
I think you have a procedure-focused view where the important thing is that articles are written, regardless of whether they’re read. I mostly don’t personally think it’s valuable to write things people don’t read. (though again for all I know CE’s reports are widely read, in which case I’d update!) And it’s actually harder to write things people want to read than to just write things.
(To be clear, I think there are exceptions. Eg all else equal, writing up your thoughts/cruxes/BOTECs are good even if nobody else reads them because it helps with improving quality of thinking).
How about just making some applications public, as Austin suggested? I actually think it would be good to make public the applications of all grants EA Funds makes, and maybe even rejected applications.
We’ve started working on this, but no promises. My guess is that making public the rejected applications is more valuable than accepted ones, eg on Manifund. Note that grantees also have the option to upload their applications as well (and there are less privacy concerns if grantees choose to reveal this information).
We’ve started working on this [making some application public], but no promises. My guess is that making public the rejected applications is more valuable than accepted ones, eg on Manifund. Note that grantees also have the option to upload their applications as well (and there are less privacy concerns if grantees choose to reveal this information).
Manifund already has quite a good infrastructure for sharing grants. However, have you considered asking applicants to post a public version of their applications on EA Forum? People who prefer to remain anonymous could use an anonymous account, and anonymise the public version of their grant. At a higher cost, there would be a new class of posts[1] which would mimic some of the features of Manifund, but this is not strictly necessary. The posts with the applications could simply be tagged appropriately (with new tags created for the purpose), and include a standardised section with some key information, like the requested amount of funding, and the status of the grant (which could be changed over time editing the post).
The idea above is inspired by some thoughts from Hauke Hillebrandt.
Grantees are obviously welcome to do this. That said, my guess is that this will make the forum less enjoyable/useful for the average reader, rather than more.
I think a dedicated area would minimise the negative impact on people that aren’t interested whilst potentially adding value (to prospective applicants in understanding what did and didn’t get accepted, and possibly also to grant assessors if there was occasional additional insight offered by commenters)
I ’d expect there would be some details of some applications that wouldn’t be appropriate to share on a public forum though
Right, but they have not been doing it. So I assume EA Funds would have to at least encourage applicants to do it, or even make it a requirement for most applications. There can be confidential information in some applications, but, as you said below, applicants do not have to share everything in their public version.
That said, my guess is that this will make the forum less enjoyable/useful for the average reader, rather than more.
I guess the opposite, but I do not know. I am mostly in favour of experimenting with a few applications, and then deciding whether to stop or scale up.
(I do wonder if there’s an effect where because we communicate our overall views so much, we become a more obvious/noticeable target to criticize.)
To be clear, the criticisms I make in the post and comments apply to all grantmakers I mentioned in the post except for CE.
Well, I haven’t read CE’s reports. Have you?
I have skimmed some, but the vast majority of my donations have been going to AI safety interventions (via LTFF). I may read CE’s reports in more detail in the futute, as I have been moving away from AI safety to animal welfare as the most promising cause area.
I think you have a procedure-focused view where the important thing is that articles are written, regardless of whether they’re read.
I do not care about transparency per se[1], but I think there is usually a correlation between it and cost-effectiveness (for reasons like the ones you mentioned inside parentheses). So, a priori, lower transparency updates me towards lower cost-effectiveness.
We’ve started working on this, but no promises.
Cool!
My guess is that making public the rejected applications is more valuable than accepted ones, eg on Manifund.
I can see this being the case, as people currently get to know about most accepted aplications, but nothing about the rejected ones.
(Appreciate the upvote!)
At a high level, l I’m of the opinion that we practice better reasoning transparency than ~all EA funding sources outside of global health, e.g. a) I’m responding to your thread here and other people have not, b) (I think) people can have a decent model of what we actually do rather than just an amorphous positive impression, and c) I make an effort of politely delivering messages that most grantmakers are aware of but don’t say because they’re worried about flack.
It’s really not obvious that this is the best use of limited resources compared to e.g. engaging with large donors directly or having very polished outwards-facing content, but I do think criticizing our lack of public output is odd given that we invest more in it than almost anybody else.
(I do wonder if there’s an effect where because we communicate our overall views so much, we become a more obvious/noticeable target to criticize.)
Well, I haven’t read CE’s reports. Have you?
I think you have a procedure-focused view where the important thing is that articles are written, regardless of whether they’re read. I mostly don’t personally think it’s valuable to write things people don’t read. (though again for all I know CE’s reports are widely read, in which case I’d update!) And it’s actually harder to write things people want to read than to just write things.
(To be clear, I think there are exceptions. Eg all else equal, writing up your thoughts/cruxes/BOTECs are good even if nobody else reads them because it helps with improving quality of thinking).
We’ve started working on this, but no promises. My guess is that making public the rejected applications is more valuable than accepted ones, eg on Manifund. Note that grantees also have the option to upload their applications as well (and there are less privacy concerns if grantees choose to reveal this information).
Manifund already has quite a good infrastructure for sharing grants. However, have you considered asking applicants to post a public version of their applications on EA Forum? People who prefer to remain anonymous could use an anonymous account, and anonymise the public version of their grant. At a higher cost, there would be a new class of posts[1] which would mimic some of the features of Manifund, but this is not strictly necessary. The posts with the applications could simply be tagged appropriately (with new tags created for the purpose), and include a standardised section with some key information, like the requested amount of funding, and the status of the grant (which could be changed over time editing the post).
The idea above is inspired by some thoughts from Hauke Hillebrandt.
As of now, there are 3 types, normal posts, question posts and linkposts/crossposts.
Grantees are obviously welcome to do this. That said, my guess is that this will make the forum less enjoyable/useful for the average reader, rather than more.
I think a dedicated area would minimise the negative impact on people that aren’t interested whilst potentially adding value (to prospective applicants in understanding what did and didn’t get accepted, and possibly also to grant assessors if there was occasional additional insight offered by commenters)
I ’d expect there would be some details of some applications that wouldn’t be appropriate to share on a public forum though
Hopefully grantees can opt-in/out as appropriate! They don’t need so share everything.
Right, but they have not been doing it. So I assume EA Funds would have to at least encourage applicants to do it, or even make it a requirement for most applications. There can be confidential information in some applications, but, as you said below, applicants do not have to share everything in their public version.
I guess the opposite, but I do not know. I am mostly in favour of experimenting with a few applications, and then deciding whether to stop or scale up.
To be clear, the criticisms I make in the post and comments apply to all grantmakers I mentioned in the post except for CE.
I have skimmed some, but the vast majority of my donations have been going to AI safety interventions (via LTFF). I may read CE’s reports in more detail in the futute, as I have been moving away from AI safety to animal welfare as the most promising cause area.
I do not care about transparency per se[1], but I think there is usually a correlation between it and cost-effectiveness (for reasons like the ones you mentioned inside parentheses). So, a priori, lower transparency updates me towards lower cost-effectiveness.
Cool!
I can see this being the case, as people currently get to know about most accepted aplications, but nothing about the rejected ones.
I fully endorse expected total hedonistic utilitarianism, so I only intrinsically value/disvalue positive/negative conscious experiences.