The obvious solution to this is to have two separate institutions, trying to do these two different things?
Do you mean this as distinct from Jonasās suggestion of:
setting up a second, more āmainstreamā long-term future fund. That fund might give to most longtermist institutes and would have a lot of fungibility with Open Philās funding, but seems likely a better way to introduce interested donors to longtermism.
It seems to me that that could address this issue well. But maybe you think the other institution should have a more different structure or be totally separate from EA Funds?
But Iām not sure how workable that is here (and Iām not sure what a ālongtermist fund that tries to be legible and public facing, but without OpenPhil scale of money would actually look like!)
FWIW, my initial reaction is āSeems like it should be very workable? Just mostly donate to organisations that have relatively easy to understand theories of change, have already developed a track record, and/āor have mainstream signals of credibility or prestige (e.g. affiliations with impressive universities). E.g., Center for Health Security, FHI, GPI, maybe CSET, maybe 80,000 Hours, maybe specific programs from prominent non-EA think tanks.ā
Do you think this is harder than Iām imagining? Or maybe that the ideal would be to give to different types of things?
Do you mean this as distinct from Jonasās suggestion of:
Nah, I think Jonasā suggestion would be a good implementation of what Iām suggesting. Though as part of this, Iād want the LTFF to be less public facing and obviousāif someone googled āeffective altruism longtermism donateā Iād want them to be pointed to this new fund.
Hmm, I agree that a version of this fund could be implemented pretty easilyāeg just make a list of the top 10 longtermist orgs and give 10% to each. My main concern is that it seems easy to do in a fairly disingenuous and manipulative way, if we expect all of its money to just funge against OpenPhil. And Iām not sure how to do it well and ethically.
This sounds right to me.
Do you mean this as distinct from Jonasās suggestion of:
It seems to me that that could address this issue well. But maybe you think the other institution should have a more different structure or be totally separate from EA Funds?
FWIW, my initial reaction is āSeems like it should be very workable? Just mostly donate to organisations that have relatively easy to understand theories of change, have already developed a track record, and/āor have mainstream signals of credibility or prestige (e.g. affiliations with impressive universities). E.g., Center for Health Security, FHI, GPI, maybe CSET, maybe 80,000 Hours, maybe specific programs from prominent non-EA think tanks.ā
Do you think this is harder than Iām imagining? Or maybe that the ideal would be to give to different types of things?
Nah, I think Jonasā suggestion would be a good implementation of what Iām suggesting. Though as part of this, Iād want the LTFF to be less public facing and obviousāif someone googled āeffective altruism longtermism donateā Iād want them to be pointed to this new fund.
Hmm, I agree that a version of this fund could be implemented pretty easilyāeg just make a list of the top 10 longtermist orgs and give 10% to each. My main concern is that it seems easy to do in a fairly disingenuous and manipulative way, if we expect all of its money to just funge against OpenPhil. And Iām not sure how to do it well and ethically.
Yeah, we could simply explain transparently that it would funge with Open Philās longtermist budget.