I have said this in other spaces since the FTX collapse: The original idea of EA, as I see it, was that it was supposed to make the kind of research work done at philanthropic foundations open and usable for well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners. While itās inadvisable to outright condemn billionaires using EA work to orient their donations forā¦ obvious reasons, I do think there is a moral hazard in billionaires funding meta EA. Now, the most extreme policy would be to have meta EA be solely funded by membership dues (as plenty organizations are!). Iām not sure if that would really be workable for the amounts of money involved, but some kind of donation cap could be plausibly envisaged.
The original idea of EA, as I see it, was that it was supposed to make the kind of research work done at philanthropic foundations open and usable for well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners
This part doesnāt resonate with me. I worked at 80k early on (~2014) and have been in the community for a long time. Then, I think the main thing was excitement over ādoing good the most effectivelyā. The assumption was that most philanthropic foundations werenāt doing a good jobānot that we wanted regular people to participate, specifically. I think then, most community members would be pretty excited about the idea of the key EA ideas growing as quickly as possible, and billionaires would help with that.
GiveWell specifically was started with a focus on smaller donors, but there was a always a separation between them and EA.
(I am of course more sympathetic to a general skepticism around any billionaire or other overwhelming donor. Though Iām personally also skeptical of most other donation options to other degreesāI want some pragmatic options that can understand the various strengths and weaknesses of different donors and respond accordingly)
GiveWell specifically was started with a focus on smaller donors, but there was a always a separation between them and EA.
ā¦ Iām confused by what you would mean by early EA then? As the history of the movement is generally told it started by the merger of three strands: GiveWell (which attempt to make charity effectiveness research available for well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners), GWWC (which attempt to convince well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners to give to charity too), and the rationalists and proto-longtermists (not relevant here).
Criticisms of ineffective charities (stereotypically, the Make a Wish Foundation) could be part of that, but theyāre specifically the charities well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners tend to donate to when they do donate, I donāt think people were going out claiming the biggest billionaire philanthropic foundations (like, say, well, the Bill Gates Foundation) didnāt knew what to do with their money.
Quickly: 1. Some of this gets into semantics. There are some things that are more ākey inspirations for what was formally called EAā and other things that āwere formally called EA, or called themselves EA.ā GiveWell was highly influential around EA, but I think it was created before EA was coined, and I donāt think they publicly associated as āEAā for some time (if ever). 2. I think weāre straying from the main topic at this point. One issue is that while I think we disagree on some of the details/āsemantics of early EA, I also donāt think that matters much for the greater issue at hand. āThe specific reason why the EA community technically startedā is pretty different from āwhat people in this scene currently care about.ā
Didnāt really want to in depth go beyond what @Ozzie Gooen already said and mentioning the event that originally prompted that line of thought, but added a link to @David Thorstadās sequence on the subject.
I have said this in other spaces since the FTX collapse: The original idea of EA, as I see it, was that it was supposed to make the kind of research work done at philanthropic foundations open and usable for well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners. While itās inadvisable to outright condemn billionaires using EA work to orient their donations forā¦ obvious reasons, I do think there is a moral hazard in billionaires funding meta EA. Now, the most extreme policy would be to have meta EA be solely funded by membership dues (as plenty organizations are!). Iām not sure if that would really be workable for the amounts of money involved, but some kind of donation cap could be plausibly envisaged.
This part doesnāt resonate with me. I worked at 80k early on (~2014) and have been in the community for a long time. Then, I think the main thing was excitement over ādoing good the most effectivelyā. The assumption was that most philanthropic foundations werenāt doing a good jobānot that we wanted regular people to participate, specifically. I think then, most community members would be pretty excited about the idea of the key EA ideas growing as quickly as possible, and billionaires would help with that.
GiveWell specifically was started with a focus on smaller donors, but there was a always a separation between them and EA.
(I am of course more sympathetic to a general skepticism around any billionaire or other overwhelming donor. Though Iām personally also skeptical of most other donation options to other degreesāI want some pragmatic options that can understand the various strengths and weaknesses of different donors and respond accordingly)
ā¦ Iām confused by what you would mean by early EA then? As the history of the movement is generally told it started by the merger of three strands: GiveWell (which attempt to make charity effectiveness research available for well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners), GWWC (which attempt to convince well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners to give to charity too), and the rationalists and proto-longtermists (not relevant here).
Criticisms of ineffective charities (stereotypically, the Make a Wish Foundation) could be part of that, but theyāre specifically the charities well-to-do-but-not-Bill-Gates-rich Westerners tend to donate to when they do donate, I donāt think people were going out claiming the biggest billionaire philanthropic foundations (like, say, well, the Bill Gates Foundation) didnāt knew what to do with their money.
Quickly:
1. Some of this gets into semantics. There are some things that are more ākey inspirations for what was formally called EAā and other things that āwere formally called EA, or called themselves EA.ā GiveWell was highly influential around EA, but I think it was created before EA was coined, and I donāt think they publicly associated as āEAā for some time (if ever).
2. I think weāre straying from the main topic at this point. One issue is that while I think we disagree on some of the details/āsemantics of early EA, I also donāt think that matters much for the greater issue at hand. āThe specific reason why the EA community technically startedā is pretty different from āwhat people in this scene currently care about.ā
It might be helpful to clarify what you mean by āmoral hazardā here.
Didnāt really want to in depth go beyond what @Ozzie Gooen already said and mentioning the event that originally prompted that line of thought, but added a link to @David Thorstadās sequence on the subject.