Ozzie my apologies for not addressing all of your many points here, but I do want to link you to two places where I’ve expressed a lot of my takes on the broad topic:
On medium, I talk about how I see the community at some length. tldr: aligned around the question of how to do the most good vs the answer, heterogenous, and often specifically alien to me and my values.
On the forum, I talk about the theoretical and practical difficulties of OP being “accountable to the community” (and here I also address an endowment idea specifically in a way that people found compelling). Similarly from my POV it’s pretty dang hard to have the community be accountable to OP, in spite of everything people say they believe about that. Yes we can withold funding, after the fact, and at great community reputational cost. But I can’t e.g. get SBF to not do podcasts nor stop the EA (or two?) that seem to have joined DOGE and started laying waste to USAID. (On Bsky, they blame EAs for the whole endeavor)
Yes we can withold funding, after the fact, and at great community reputational cost. But I can’t e.g. get SBF to not do podcasts nor stop the EA (or two?) that seem to have joined DOGE and started laying waste to USAID.
I believe most EAs would agree these examples should never have been in OP’s proverbial sphere of responsibility.
There are other examples we could discuss regarding OP’s role (as makes sense, no organization is perfect), but that might distract from the main topic: clarity on the OP-EA relationship and the mutual expectations between parties.
It seems obvious that such Bsky threads contain significant inaccuracies. The question is how much weight to give such criticisms.
My impression is that many EAs wouldn’t consider these threads important enough to drive major decisions like funding allocations. However, the fact you mention it suggests it’s significant to you, which I respect.
About the OP-EA relationship—if factors like “avoiding criticism from certain groups” are important for OP’s decisions, saying so clearly is the kind of thing that seems useful. I don’t want to get into arguments about if it should[1], the first thing is to just understand that that’s where a line is.
More specifically, I think these discussions could be useful—but I’m afraid they will get in the way of the discussions of how OP will act, which I think is more important.
This is probably off-topic, but I was very surprised to read this, given how much he supported the Harris campaign, how much he gives to reduce global poverty, and how similar your views are on e.g. platforming controversial people.
Just flagging that the EA Forum upvoting system is awkward here. This comment says: 1. “I can’t say that we agree on very much” 2. “you are often a voice of reason” 3. “your voice will be missed”
As such, I’m not sure what the Agree / Disagree reacts are referring to, and I imagine similar for others reading this.
This isn’t a point against David, just a challenge with us trying to use this specific system.
Thanks for the response here! I was not expecting that.
This is a topic that can become frustratingly combative if not handled gracefully, especially in public forums. To clarify, my main point isn’t disagreement with OP’s position, but rather I was trying to help build clarity on the OP-EA relationship.
Some points: 1. The relationship between the “EA Community” and OP is both important (given the resources involved) and complex[1] . 2. In such relationships, there are often unspoken expectations between parties. Clarity might be awkward initially but leads to better understanding and coordination long-term. 3. I understand you’re uncomfortable with OP being considered responsible for much of EA or accountable to EA. This aligns with the hypotheses in my original comment. I’m not sure we’re disagreeing on anything here. 4. I appreciate your comments, though I think many people might reasonably still find the situation confusing. This issue is critical to many people’s long-term plans. The links you shared are helpful but leave some uncertainty—I’ll review them more carefully. 5. At this point, we might be more bottlenecked by EAs analyzing the situation than by additional writing from OP (though both are useful). EAs likely need to better recognize the limitations of the OP-EA relationship and consider what that means for the community. 6. When I asked for clarification, I imagined that EA community members working at the OP-EA intersection would be well positioned to provide insight. One challenge is that many people feel uncomfortable discussing this relationship openly due to the power imbalance.[2]. As well as the funding issue (OP funds EA), there’s also the fact that OP has better ways of privately communicating[3]. (This is also one issue why I’m unusually careful and long with my words with these discussions, sorry if it comes across as harder to read.) That said, comment interactions and assurances from the OP do help build trust.
i.e. For example, say an EA community member writes something that upsets someone at OP. Then that person holds a silent grudge, decides they don’t like that person, then doesn’t fund them later. This is very human, and there’s a clear information asymmetry. The EA community member would never know if this happens, so it would make sense for them to be extra cautious.
People at OP can confidentially discuss with each other how to best handle their side of the OP-EA relationship. But in comparison, EA community members mainly have the public EA Forum, so there’s an inherent disadvantage.
I’m interested in hearing from those who provided downvotes. I could imagine a bunch of reasons why one might have done so (there were a lot of points included here).
(Upon reflection, I don’t think my previous comment was very good. I tried to balance being concise, defensive, and comprehensive, but ended up with something confusing. I’d be happy to clarify my stance on this more at any time if asked, though it might well be too late now for that to be useful. Apologies!)
Many people claim that Elon Musk is an EA person, @Cole Killian has an EA Forum account and mentioned effective altruism on his (now deleted) website, Luke Farritor won the Vesuvius Challenge mentioned in this post (he also allegedly wrote or reposted a tweet mentioning effective altruism, but I can’t find any proof and people are skeptical)
Ozzie my apologies for not addressing all of your many points here, but I do want to link you to two places where I’ve expressed a lot of my takes on the broad topic:
On medium, I talk about how I see the community at some length. tldr: aligned around the question of how to do the most good vs the answer, heterogenous, and often specifically alien to me and my values.
On the forum, I talk about the theoretical and practical difficulties of OP being “accountable to the community” (and here I also address an endowment idea specifically in a way that people found compelling). Similarly from my POV it’s pretty dang hard to have the community be accountable to OP, in spite of everything people say they believe about that. Yes we can withold funding, after the fact, and at great community reputational cost. But I can’t e.g. get SBF to not do podcasts nor stop the EA (or two?) that seem to have joined DOGE and started laying waste to USAID. (On Bsky, they blame EAs for the whole endeavor)
Minor points, from your comment:
I believe most EAs would agree these examples should never have been in OP’s proverbial sphere of responsibility.
There are other examples we could discuss regarding OP’s role (as makes sense, no organization is perfect), but that might distract from the main topic: clarity on the OP-EA relationship and the mutual expectations between parties.
It seems obvious that such Bsky threads contain significant inaccuracies. The question is how much weight to give such criticisms.
My impression is that many EAs wouldn’t consider these threads important enough to drive major decisions like funding allocations. However, the fact you mention it suggests it’s significant to you, which I respect.
About the OP-EA relationship—if factors like “avoiding criticism from certain groups” are important for OP’s decisions, saying so clearly is the kind of thing that seems useful. I don’t want to get into arguments about if it should[1], the first thing is to just understand that that’s where a line is.
More specifically, I think these discussions could be useful—but I’m afraid they will get in the way of the discussions of how OP will act, which I think is more important.
Ozzie I’m not planning to discuss it any further and don’t plan to participate on the forum anymore.
Please come back. I can’t say that we agree on very much, but you are often a voice of reason and your voice will be missed.
This is probably off-topic, but I was very surprised to read this, given how much he supported the Harris campaign, how much he gives to reduce global poverty, and how similar your views are on e.g. platforming controversial people.
Presumably https://reflectivealtruism.com/category/billionaire-philanthropy/?
Just flagging that the EA Forum upvoting system is awkward here. This comment says:
1. “I can’t say that we agree on very much”
2. “you are often a voice of reason”
3. “your voice will be missed”
As such, I’m not sure what the Agree / Disagree reacts are referring to, and I imagine similar for others reading this.
This isn’t a point against David, just a challenge with us trying to use this specific system.
This seems like quite a stretch.
Thanks for the response here! I was not expecting that.
This is a topic that can become frustratingly combative if not handled gracefully, especially in public forums. To clarify, my main point isn’t disagreement with OP’s position, but rather I was trying to help build clarity on the OP-EA relationship.
Some points:
1. The relationship between the “EA Community” and OP is both important (given the resources involved) and complex[1] .
2. In such relationships, there are often unspoken expectations between parties. Clarity might be awkward initially but leads to better understanding and coordination long-term.
3. I understand you’re uncomfortable with OP being considered responsible for much of EA or accountable to EA. This aligns with the hypotheses in my original comment. I’m not sure we’re disagreeing on anything here.
4. I appreciate your comments, though I think many people might reasonably still find the situation confusing. This issue is critical to many people’s long-term plans. The links you shared are helpful but leave some uncertainty—I’ll review them more carefully.
5. At this point, we might be more bottlenecked by EAs analyzing the situation than by additional writing from OP (though both are useful). EAs likely need to better recognize the limitations of the OP-EA relationship and consider what that means for the community.
6. When I asked for clarification, I imagined that EA community members working at the OP-EA intersection would be well positioned to provide insight. One challenge is that many people feel uncomfortable discussing this relationship openly due to the power imbalance.[2]. As well as the funding issue (OP funds EA), there’s also the fact that OP has better ways of privately communicating[3]. (This is also one issue why I’m unusually careful and long with my words with these discussions, sorry if it comes across as harder to read.) That said, comment interactions and assurances from the OP do help build trust.
there’s a fair bit of nuance involved—I’m sure that you have noticed confusion on the side of EAs at least
i.e. For example, say an EA community member writes something that upsets someone at OP. Then that person holds a silent grudge, decides they don’t like that person, then doesn’t fund them later. This is very human, and there’s a clear information asymmetry. The EA community member would never know if this happens, so it would make sense for them to be extra cautious.
People at OP can confidentially discuss with each other how to best handle their side of the OP-EA relationship. But in comparison, EA community members mainly have the public EA Forum, so there’s an inherent disadvantage.
I’m interested in hearing from those who provided downvotes. I could imagine a bunch of reasons why one might have done so (there were a lot of points included here).
(Upon reflection, I don’t think my previous comment was very good. I tried to balance being concise, defensive, and comprehensive, but ended up with something confusing. I’d be happy to clarify my stance on this more at any time if asked, though it might well be too late now for that to be useful. Apologies!)
I’m out of the loop, who’s this allegedly EA person who works at DOGE?
Many people claim that Elon Musk is an EA person, @Cole Killian has an EA Forum account and mentioned effective altruism on his (now deleted) website, Luke Farritor won the Vesuvius Challenge mentioned in this post (he also allegedly wrote or reposted a tweet mentioning effective altruism, but I can’t find any proof and people are skeptical)