Some feedback on your feedback (I’ve only quickly read your post once, so take it with a grain of salt):
I think that this is more discursive than it needs to be. AFAICT, you’re basically arguing that you think that decision-making and trust in the EA movement is a over-concentrated in OpenPhil.
If it was a bit shorter, then it would also be easier to run it by someone involved with OpenPhil, which prima facie would be at least worth trying, in order to correct any factual errors.
It’s hard to do good criticism, but starting out with long explanations of confidence games and Ponzi schemes is not something that makes the criticism likely to be well-received. You assert that these things are not necessarily bad, so why not just zero in on the thing that you think is bad in this case?
So maybe this could have been split into two posts?
Maybe there are more upsides of having somewhat concentrated decision-making than you lead on? Perhaps cause prioritization will be better? Since EA funds is a movement-wide scheme, perhaps reputational trust is extra important here, and the diversification would come from elsewhere? Perhaps the best decision-makers will naturally come to work on this full-time.
You may still be right, though I would want some more balanced analysis.
(Disclosure, I read this post, thought it was very thorough, and encouraged Ben to post it here.)
It’s hard to do good criticism, but starting out with long explanations of confidence games and Ponzi schemes is not something that makes the criticism likely to be well-received. You assert that these things are not necessarily bad, so why not just zero in on the thing that you think is bad in this case?
Just to balance this, I actually liked the Ponzi scheme section. I think that making the claim ‘aspects of EA have Ponzi-like elements and this is a problem’ without carefully explaining what a Ponzi scheme is and without explaining that Ponzi-schemes don’t necessarily require people with bad intentions would have potential to be much more inflammatory. As written, this piece struck me as fairly measured.
Also, since the claims are aimed at a potentially-flawed general approach/mindset rather than being specific to current actions, zeroing in too much might be net counterproductive in this case; there’s some balance to strike here.
If someone thinks concentrated decisionmaking is better, they should be overtly making the case for concentrated decisionmaking. When I talk with EA leaders about this they generally do not try to sell me on concentrated decisionmaking, they just note that everyone seems eager to trust them so they may as well try to put that resource to good use. Often they say they’d be happy if alternatives emerged.
I enjoyed the SSC-style length and thought it helpful in fully explicating his arguments. :) It may be the case that an artificially-shortened version of the post would not be as listened-to. But perhaps a TL;DR could go at the top.
Some feedback on your feedback (I’ve only quickly read your post once, so take it with a grain of salt):
I think that this is more discursive than it needs to be. AFAICT, you’re basically arguing that you think that decision-making and trust in the EA movement is a over-concentrated in OpenPhil.
If it was a bit shorter, then it would also be easier to run it by someone involved with OpenPhil, which prima facie would be at least worth trying, in order to correct any factual errors.
It’s hard to do good criticism, but starting out with long explanations of confidence games and Ponzi schemes is not something that makes the criticism likely to be well-received. You assert that these things are not necessarily bad, so why not just zero in on the thing that you think is bad in this case?
So maybe this could have been split into two posts?
Maybe there are more upsides of having somewhat concentrated decision-making than you lead on? Perhaps cause prioritization will be better? Since EA funds is a movement-wide scheme, perhaps reputational trust is extra important here, and the diversification would come from elsewhere? Perhaps the best decision-makers will naturally come to work on this full-time.
You may still be right, though I would want some more balanced analysis.
(Disclosure, I read this post, thought it was very thorough, and encouraged Ben to post it here.)
Just to balance this, I actually liked the Ponzi scheme section. I think that making the claim ‘aspects of EA have Ponzi-like elements and this is a problem’ without carefully explaining what a Ponzi scheme is and without explaining that Ponzi-schemes don’t necessarily require people with bad intentions would have potential to be much more inflammatory. As written, this piece struck me as fairly measured.
Also, since the claims are aimed at a potentially-flawed general approach/mindset rather than being specific to current actions, zeroing in too much might be net counterproductive in this case; there’s some balance to strike here.
If someone thinks concentrated decisionmaking is better, they should be overtly making the case for concentrated decisionmaking. When I talk with EA leaders about this they generally do not try to sell me on concentrated decisionmaking, they just note that everyone seems eager to trust them so they may as well try to put that resource to good use. Often they say they’d be happy if alternatives emerged.
I enjoyed the SSC-style length and thought it helpful in fully explicating his arguments. :) It may be the case that an artificially-shortened version of the post would not be as listened-to. But perhaps a TL;DR could go at the top.
I found the analogy with confidence games thought-provoking, but it could have been a bit shorter.