I had Claude rewrite this, if the terminology is confusing. I think it’s edit is decent. ---
The EA-Open Philanthropy Relationship: Clarifying Expectations
The relationship between Effective Altruism (EA) and Open Philanthropy (OP) might suffer from misaligned expectations. My observations:
OP funds the majority of EA activity
Many EAs view OP as fundamentally aligned with EA principles
OP deliberately maintains distance from EA and doesn’t claim to be an “EA organization”
EAs often assume OP leadership is somewhat accountable to the EA community, while OP leadership likely disagrees
Many EAs see their community as a unified movement with shared goals and mutual support
OP appears to view EA more transactionally—as a valuable resource pool for talent, ideas, and occasionally money
This creates a fundamental tension. OP approaches the relationship through a cost-benefit lens, funding EA initiatives when they directly advance specific OP goals (like AI safety research). Meanwhile, many EAs view EA as a transformative cultural movement with intrinsic value beyond any specific cause area.
These different perspectives manifest in competing priorities:
EA community-oriented view prioritizes:
Long-term community health and growth
Individual wellbeing of community members
Building EA’s reputation for honesty and trustworthiness
Transactional view prioritizes:
Short-term talent pipeline and funding opportunities
Risk management (not wanting EA activities to wind up reflecting poorly on OP)
Minimizing EA criticism of OP and OP activities. (This is both annoying to deal with, and could hurt their specific activities)
This disconnect explains why some people might feel betrayed by EA. Recruiters often promote EA as a supportive community/movement (which resonates better), but if the funding reality treats EA more as a talent network, there’s a fundamental misalignment.
Another thought I’ve had: “EA Global has major community and social movement vibes, but has the financial incentives in line with a recruiting fair.”
Both perspectives can coexist, but greater clarity could be really useful here.
I had Claude rewrite this, if the terminology is confusing. I think it’s edit is decent.
---
The EA-Open Philanthropy Relationship: Clarifying Expectations
The relationship between Effective Altruism (EA) and Open Philanthropy (OP) might suffer from misaligned expectations. My observations:
OP funds the majority of EA activity
Many EAs view OP as fundamentally aligned with EA principles
OP deliberately maintains distance from EA and doesn’t claim to be an “EA organization”
EAs often assume OP leadership is somewhat accountable to the EA community, while OP leadership likely disagrees
Many EAs see their community as a unified movement with shared goals and mutual support
OP appears to view EA more transactionally—as a valuable resource pool for talent, ideas, and occasionally money
This creates a fundamental tension. OP approaches the relationship through a cost-benefit lens, funding EA initiatives when they directly advance specific OP goals (like AI safety research). Meanwhile, many EAs view EA as a transformative cultural movement with intrinsic value beyond any specific cause area.
These different perspectives manifest in competing priorities:
EA community-oriented view prioritizes:
Long-term community health and growth
Individual wellbeing of community members
Building EA’s reputation for honesty and trustworthiness
Transactional view prioritizes:
Short-term talent pipeline and funding opportunities
Risk management (not wanting EA activities to wind up reflecting poorly on OP)
Minimizing EA criticism of OP and OP activities. (This is both annoying to deal with, and could hurt their specific activities)
This disconnect explains why some people might feel betrayed by EA. Recruiters often promote EA as a supportive community/movement (which resonates better), but if the funding reality treats EA more as a talent network, there’s a fundamental misalignment.
Another thought I’ve had: “EA Global has major community and social movement vibes, but has the financial incentives in line with a recruiting fair.”
Both perspectives can coexist, but greater clarity could be really useful here.