Thanks very much for this. I see that OP’s longterm pot is really big and I’m wonder if that’s all community building, and also what counts as community building.
If you spend money on, say, AI safety research, I guess I’d see that as more like object-level funding than community building. Whereas ‘pure’ community building is the sort of thing the local groups do: bringing people together to meet, rather than funding specific work for the attendees to do. (If someone funded AMF and their team grew, I’m not sure people would say that’s GH and W community building; by analogy, maybe object-level work doesn’t count)
Does this seem right? I imagine lots of OPLT’s money is object-level stuff rather than pure community building. If so, maybe those should be split apart (and the LT community budget gets quite a bit smaller).
I have not counted any object level work for any cause (e.g. I included funding for a co-working space, but not the AI safety labs that work out of the space).
The OP LT team has not made any grants that fall into that category, as far as I could see.
However, I did count most (?) longtermist field building projects in my estimates because a lot of them feel like importantly shaping the EA community since most of those people would participate in EA branded events and some would consider themselves post of the community etc. On the flip side, many university groups that are EA branded also end up promoting longtermist careers/causes more than others.
So trying to separate this out is a bit messy.
One thing I didn’t include for time constraints is include a couple animal orgs like animal advocacy careers, but I expect the total funding for orgs like that to be <$2M total.
Thanks very much for this. I see that OP’s longterm pot is really big and I’m wonder if that’s all community building, and also what counts as community building.
If you spend money on, say, AI safety research, I guess I’d see that as more like object-level funding than community building. Whereas ‘pure’ community building is the sort of thing the local groups do: bringing people together to meet, rather than funding specific work for the attendees to do. (If someone funded AMF and their team grew, I’m not sure people would say that’s GH and W community building; by analogy, maybe object-level work doesn’t count)
Does this seem right? I imagine lots of OPLT’s money is object-level stuff rather than pure community building. If so, maybe those should be split apart (and the LT community budget gets quite a bit smaller).
For comparison, if so
Hey Michael! It’s a good question.
I have not counted any object level work for any cause (e.g. I included funding for a co-working space, but not the AI safety labs that work out of the space).
The OP LT team has not made any grants that fall into that category, as far as I could see.
However, I did count most (?) longtermist field building projects in my estimates because a lot of them feel like importantly shaping the EA community since most of those people would participate in EA branded events and some would consider themselves post of the community etc. On the flip side, many university groups that are EA branded also end up promoting longtermist careers/causes more than others.
So trying to separate this out is a bit messy.
One thing I didn’t include for time constraints is include a couple animal orgs like animal advocacy careers, but I expect the total funding for orgs like that to be <$2M total.
Thanks! Ah, in that case, I’m not sure what that community-building money was spent on—but I guess that’s not the question you’re asking!
Yeah I considered doing some analysis on the top grantees but ran out of time! Perhaps a future post :)