I personally think that’s quite explicit about the focus of the LTFF, and am not sure how to improve it further. Perhaps you think we shouldn’t mention pandemics in that sentence? Perhaps you think “especially” is not strong enough?
I agree with you that that’s pretty clear. Perhaps you could just have another sentence explaining that most grants historically have been AI-related because that’s where you receive most of your applications?
On another note, I can’t help but feel that “Global Catastrophic Risk Fund” would be a better name than “Long-term Future Fund”. This is because there are other ways to improve the long-term trajectory of civilisation than by mitigating global catastrophic risks. Also, if you were to make this change, it may help distinguish the fund from the long-term investment fund that Founders Pledge may set up.
Some of the LTFF grants (forecasting, long-term institutions, etc.) are broader than GCRs, and my guess is that at least some Fund managers are pretty excited about trajectory changes, so I’d personally think the current name seems more accurate.
Ah OK. The description below does make it sound like it’s only global catastrophic risks.
The Long-Term Future Fund aims to positively influence the long-term trajectory of civilization by making grants that address global catastrophic risks, especially potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence and pandemics.
Perhaps include the word ‘predominantly’ before the word “making”?
The second sentence on that page (i.e. the sentence right after this one) reads:
In addition, we seek to promote, implement, and advocate for longtermist ideas, and to otherwise increase the likelihood that future generations will flourish.
“Predominantly” would seem redundant with “in addition”, so I’d prefer leaving it as-is.
I agree with you that that’s pretty clear. Perhaps you could just have another sentence explaining that most grants historically have been AI-related because that’s where you receive most of your applications?
On another note, I can’t help but feel that “Global Catastrophic Risk Fund” would be a better name than “Long-term Future Fund”. This is because there are other ways to improve the long-term trajectory of civilisation than by mitigating global catastrophic risks. Also, if you were to make this change, it may help distinguish the fund from the long-term investment fund that Founders Pledge may set up.
Some of the LTFF grants (forecasting, long-term institutions, etc.) are broader than GCRs, and my guess is that at least some Fund managers are pretty excited about trajectory changes, so I’d personally think the current name seems more accurate.
Ah OK. The description below does make it sound like it’s only global catastrophic risks.
Perhaps include the word ‘predominantly’ before the word “making”?
The second sentence on that page (i.e. the sentence right after this one) reads:
“Predominantly” would seem redundant with “in addition”, so I’d prefer leaving it as-is.
OK sorry this is just me not doing my homework! That all seems reasonable.