I want to see more discussion on how EA can better diversify and have strategically-chosen distance from OP/GV.
One reason is that it seems like multiple people at OP/GV have basically said that they want this (or at least, many of the key aspects of this).
I agree with the approach’s direction, but this premise doesn’t seem very helpful in shaping the debate. It doesn’t seem that there is a right level of funding for meta EA or that this is what we currently have.
My perception is that OP has specific goals, one of which is to reduce GCR risk. As there are not so many high absorbency funding opportunities and a lot of uncertainty in the field, they focus more on capacity building, of which EA has proven to be a solid investment in talent pipeline building.
If this is true, then the level of funding we are currently seeing is downstream from OP’s overall yearly spending and their goals. Other funders will come to very different conclusions as to why they would want to fund EA meta and to what extent.
If you’re a meta funder who agrees with GCR risks, you might see opportunities that either don’t want OPs’ money, that OP doesn’t want to fund, or that want to keep OPs’ funding under a certain bar. These are more neglected, but they are more cost-effective for you as they are not as fungible.
At the last, MCF funding diversification and the EA brand were the two main topics, but to me, meta-funding diversification seems much harder, especially for areas under the EA brand.
This is good to know. While mentioning MCF, I would bring up that it seems bad to me that MCF seems to be very much within the OP umbrella, as I understand it. I believe that it was funded by OP or CEA, and the people who set it up were employed by CEA, which was primarily funded by OP. Most of the attendees seem like people at OP or CEA, or else heavily funded by OP.
I have a lot of respect for many of these people and am not claiming anything nefarious. But I do think that this acts as a good example of the sort of thing that seems important for the EA community, and also that OP has an incredibly large amount of control over. It seems like an obvious potential conflict of interest.
Quickly: > I agree with the approach’s direction, but this premise doesn’t seem very helpful in shaping the debate.
Sorry, I don’t understand this. What is “the debate” that you are referring to?
I just meant the discussion you wanted to see; I probably used the wrong synonym.
This is good to know. While mentioning MCF, I would bring up that it seems bad to me that MCF seems to be very much within the OP umbrella, as I understand it. I believe that it was funded by OP or CEA, and the people who set it up were employed by CEA, which was primarily funded by OP. Most of the attendees seem like people at OP or CEA, or else heavily funded by OP.
I generally believe that EA is effective at being pragmatic, and in that regard, I think it’s important for the key organizations that are both giving and receiving funding in this area to coordinate, especially with topics like funding diversification. I agree that this is not the ideal world, but this goes back to the main topic.
I generally believe that EA is effective at being pragmatic, and in that regard, I think it’s important for the key organizations that are both giving and receiving funding in this area to coordinate, especially with topics like funding diversification. I agree that this is not the ideal world, but this goes back to the main topic.
For reference, I agree it’s important for these people to be meeting with each other. I wasn’t disagreeing with that.
However, I would hope that over time, there would be more people brought in who aren’t in the immediate OP umbrella, to key discussions of the future of EA. At least have like 10% of the audience be strongly/mostly independent or something.
I agree with the approach’s direction, but this premise doesn’t seem very helpful in shaping the debate. It doesn’t seem that there is a right level of funding for meta EA or that this is what we currently have.
My perception is that OP has specific goals, one of which is to reduce GCR risk. As there are not so many high absorbency funding opportunities and a lot of uncertainty in the field, they focus more on capacity building, of which EA has proven to be a solid investment in talent pipeline building.
If this is true, then the level of funding we are currently seeing is downstream from OP’s overall yearly spending and their goals. Other funders will come to very different conclusions as to why they would want to fund EA meta and to what extent.
If you’re a meta funder who agrees with GCR risks, you might see opportunities that either don’t want OPs’ money, that OP doesn’t want to fund, or that want to keep OPs’ funding under a certain bar. These are more neglected, but they are more cost-effective for you as they are not as fungible.
At the last, MCF funding diversification and the EA brand were the two main topics, but to me, meta-funding diversification seems much harder, especially for areas under the EA brand.
I think you raise some good points on why diversification as I discuss it is difficult and why it hasn’t been done more.
Quickly:
> I agree with the approach’s direction, but this premise doesn’t seem very helpful in shaping the debate.
Sorry, I don’t understand this. What is “the debate” that you are referring to?
> At the last, MCF funding diversification and the EA brand were the two main topics
This is good to know. While mentioning MCF, I would bring up that it seems bad to me that MCF seems to be very much within the OP umbrella, as I understand it. I believe that it was funded by OP or CEA, and the people who set it up were employed by CEA, which was primarily funded by OP. Most of the attendees seem like people at OP or CEA, or else heavily funded by OP.
I have a lot of respect for many of these people and am not claiming anything nefarious. But I do think that this acts as a good example of the sort of thing that seems important for the EA community, and also that OP has an incredibly large amount of control over. It seems like an obvious potential conflict of interest.
I just meant the discussion you wanted to see; I probably used the wrong synonym.
I generally believe that EA is effective at being pragmatic, and in that regard, I think it’s important for the key organizations that are both giving and receiving funding in this area to coordinate, especially with topics like funding diversification. I agree that this is not the ideal world, but this goes back to the main topic.
For reference, I agree it’s important for these people to be meeting with each other. I wasn’t disagreeing with that.
However, I would hope that over time, there would be more people brought in who aren’t in the immediate OP umbrella, to key discussions of the future of EA. At least have like 10% of the audience be strongly/mostly independent or something.