But the right thing to do, if you want to persuade people to delegate their giving decisions to Nick Beckstead, is to make a principled case for delegating giving decisions to Nick Beckstead.
I just want to note that we have tried to make this case.
The fund page for the Long-Term Future and EA Community funds includes an extensive list of organizations Nick has funded in the past and of his online writings.
In addition, our original launch post contained the following section:
Strong track record for finding high-leverage giving opportunities: the EA Giving Group DAF
The initial Long-Term Future and Effective Altruism Community funds will be managed by Nick Beckstead, a Program Officer at the Open Philanthropy Project who has helped advise a large private donor on donation opportunities for several years. The donor-advised fund (DAF) Nick manages was an early funder of CSER, FLI, Charity Entrepreneurship and Founders Pledge. A list of Nick’s past funding is available in his biography on this website.
We think this represents a strong track record, although the Open Philanthropy Project’s recent involvement in these areas may make it harder for the fund to find promising opportunities in the future.
Donors can give to the DAF directly by filling out this form and waiting for Nick to contact you. If you give directly the minimum contribution is $5,000. If you give via the EA Funds there is no minimum contribution and you can give directly online via credit/debit card, ACH, or PayPal. Nick’s preference is that donors use the EA Funds to contribute.
Disclaimer: Nick Beckstead is a trustee of CEA. CEA has been a large recipient of the EA Giving Group DAFs funding in the past and is a potential future recipient of money allocated to the Movement Building fund.
My guess is that you feel that we haven’t made the case for delegating to Nick as strongly or as prominently as we ought to. If so, I’d love some more specific feedback on how we can improve.
I think that in a writeup for the two funds Nick is managing, CEA has done a fine job making it clear what’s going on. The launch post here on the Forum was also very clear.
My worry is that this isn’t at all what someone attracted by EA’s public image would be expecting, since so much of the material is about experimental validation and audit.
I think that there’s an opportunity here to figure out how to effectively pitch far-future stuff directly, instead of grafting it onto existing global-poverty messaging. There’s a potential pitch centered around: “Future people are morally relevant, neglected, and extremely numerous. Saving the world isn’t just a high-minded phrase—here are some specific ways you could steer the course of the future a lot.” A lot of Nick Bostrom’s earlypublic writing is like this, and a lot of people were persuaded by this sort of thing to try to do something about x-risk. I think there’s a lot of potential value in figuring out how to bring more of those sorts of people together, and—when there are promising things in that domain to fund—help them coordinate to fund those things.
In the meantime, it does make sense to offer a fund oriented around the far future, since many EAs do share those preferences. I’m one of them, and think that Nick’s first grant was a promising one. It just seems off to me to aggressively market it as an obvious, natural thing for someone who’s just been through the GWWC or CEA intro material to put money into. I suspect that many of them would have valid objections that are being rhetorically steamrollered, and a strategy of explicit persuasion has a better chance of actually encountering those objections, and maybe learning from them.
I recognize that I’m recommending a substantial strategy change, and it would be entirely appropriate for CEA to take a while to think about it.
I imagine this has been stressful for all sides, and I do very much appreciate you continuing to engage anyway! I’m looking forward to seeing what happens in the future.
I just want to note that we have tried to make this case.
The fund page for the Long-Term Future and EA Community funds includes an extensive list of organizations Nick has funded in the past and of his online writings.
In addition, our original launch post contained the following section:
My guess is that you feel that we haven’t made the case for delegating to Nick as strongly or as prominently as we ought to. If so, I’d love some more specific feedback on how we can improve.
Kerry,
I think that in a writeup for the two funds Nick is managing, CEA has done a fine job making it clear what’s going on. The launch post here on the Forum was also very clear.
My worry is that this isn’t at all what someone attracted by EA’s public image would be expecting, since so much of the material is about experimental validation and audit.
I think that there’s an opportunity here to figure out how to effectively pitch far-future stuff directly, instead of grafting it onto existing global-poverty messaging. There’s a potential pitch centered around: “Future people are morally relevant, neglected, and extremely numerous. Saving the world isn’t just a high-minded phrase—here are some specific ways you could steer the course of the future a lot.” A lot of Nick Bostrom’s early public writing is like this, and a lot of people were persuaded by this sort of thing to try to do something about x-risk. I think there’s a lot of potential value in figuring out how to bring more of those sorts of people together, and—when there are promising things in that domain to fund—help them coordinate to fund those things.
In the meantime, it does make sense to offer a fund oriented around the far future, since many EAs do share those preferences. I’m one of them, and think that Nick’s first grant was a promising one. It just seems off to me to aggressively market it as an obvious, natural thing for someone who’s just been through the GWWC or CEA intro material to put money into. I suspect that many of them would have valid objections that are being rhetorically steamrollered, and a strategy of explicit persuasion has a better chance of actually encountering those objections, and maybe learning from them.
I recognize that I’m recommending a substantial strategy change, and it would be entirely appropriate for CEA to take a while to think about it.
Hey, Ben. Just wanted to note that I found this very helpful. Thank you.
I imagine this has been stressful for all sides, and I do very much appreciate you continuing to engage anyway! I’m looking forward to seeing what happens in the future.