In any case, EA Funds’ mean amount granted is 76.0 k$, so 52 words/grant would result in 0.684 word/k$ (= 52/(76.0*10^3)), which is lower than the 1.57 word/k$ I estimated above
You previously said: > The mean length of the write-up of EA Funds’ grants is 14.4 words
So I’m a bit confused here.
Also for both LTFF and EAIF, when I looked at mean amount granted in the past, it was under $40k rather than $76k. I’m not sure how you got $76k. I suspect at least some of the difference is skewed upwards by our Global Health and Development fund. Our Global Health and Development fund has historically ~only given to GiveWell-recommended projects, and
GiveWell is often considered the gold standard in EA transparency.
It didn’t seem necessary for our GHD grant managers (who also work at GiveWell) to justify their decisions twice since they already wrote up their thinking at GiveWell.
You previously said: > The mean length of the write-up of EA Funds’ grants is 14.4 words
This is the mean number of words of the write-ups on EA Funds’ database. 52 words in my last comment was supposed to be the words per grant regarding the payout report you mentioned. I see now that you said 40 words, so I have updated my comment above (the specific value does not affect the point I was making).
Also for both LTFF and EAIF, when I looked at mean amount granted in the past, it was under $40k rather than $76k. I’m not sure how you got $76k. I suspect at least some of the difference is skewed upwards by our Global Health and Development fund.
Makes sense. For LTFF and the Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund (EAIF), I get a mean amount granted of 42.9 k$. For these 2 funds plus the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF), 47.4 k$, so as you say the Global Health and Development Fund (GHDF) pushes up the mean across all 4 funds.
I am calculating the mean amount granted based on the amounts provided in the database, without any adjustments for inflation.
Our Global Health and Development fund has historically ~only given to GiveWell-recommended projects, and
GiveWell is often considered the gold standard in EA transparency.
It didn’t seem necessary for our GHD grant managers (who also work at GiveWell) to justify their decisions twice since they already wrote up their thinking at GiveWell.
I agree. However, the 2nd point also means donating to GHDF has basically the same effect as donating to GiveWell’s funds, so I think GHDF should be doing something else. To the extent Caleb Parikh seems to dispute this a little, I would say it would be worth having public writings about it.
Less importantly,
You previously said:
> The mean length of the write-up of EA Funds’ grants is 14.4 words
So I’m a bit confused here.
Also for both LTFF and EAIF, when I looked at mean amount granted in the past, it was under $40k rather than $76k. I’m not sure how you got $76k. I suspect at least some of the difference is skewed upwards by our Global Health and Development fund. Our Global Health and Development fund has historically ~only given to GiveWell-recommended projects, and
GiveWell is often considered the gold standard in EA transparency.
It didn’t seem necessary for our GHD grant managers (who also work at GiveWell) to justify their decisions twice since they already wrote up their thinking at GiveWell.
This is the mean number of words of the write-ups on EA Funds’ database. 52 words in my last comment was supposed to be the words per grant regarding the payout report you mentioned. I see now that you said 40 words, so I have updated my comment above (the specific value does not affect the point I was making).
Makes sense. For LTFF and the Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund (EAIF), I get a mean amount granted of 42.9 k$. For these 2 funds plus the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF), 47.4 k$, so as you say the Global Health and Development Fund (GHDF) pushes up the mean across all 4 funds.
I am calculating the mean amount granted based on the amounts provided in the database, without any adjustments for inflation.
I agree. However, the 2nd point also means donating to GHDF has basically the same effect as donating to GiveWell’s funds, so I think GHDF should be doing something else. To the extent Caleb Parikh seems to dispute this a little, I would say it would be worth having public writings about it.
Hmm, I still think your numbers are not internally consistent but I don’t know if it’s worth getting into.