I’m not sure I quite understand the take from this post, but in case it’s clarifying many fund managers do talk to external people to help them evaluate a proposal, in cases where they don’t it’s generally because they feel they can evaluate the project by looking at sections of the application like their goals and track record.
> If this is the case, maybe it makes sense for EA Funds to consider having a separate fund for expert evaluation of promising projects?
This is supposed to be what each fund does right now.
I’m not sure why your application was rejected, as when I did a quick search, I couldn’t see any applications from your forum username.
>> If this is the case, maybe it makes sense for EA Funds to consider having a separate fund for expert evaluation of promising projects?
>This is supposed to be what each fund does right now.
And exactly how I used to think about. My misunderstanding then. Sorry for making a fuss out of nothing.
>I’m not sure why your application was rejected, as when I did a quick search, I couldn’t see any applications from your forum username.
Because I didn’t apply yet :) Before tried NLNet, ConvergentResearch, SingularityNet, and recently OpenPhilantropy’s “New moonshots for aligning superintelligence”
It dawned on me why my proposals were ignored: Some no-name guy with a moonshot project, which feasibility is hard to assess without a proper expertise. It’s easier to ignore than apologize for having no capacity to evaluate.
Implies that you applied and were rejected because of a lack of expertise from EA Funds—might be worth quickly clarifying that you haven’t applied yet (if that’s the case).
You are absolutely right. Should I edit my post, delete it or leave it as it is with adding a comment? I’m new here and don’t know what is the right way to retract something. Already answered in LW with a link to your comment.
added: Just replaced “my proposals” with “my previous proposals to other funds”. Doesn’t change the narrative, only clarifies.
Any of those options sounds reasonable to me. If it were me and I no longer endorsed the post, then I would delete it (though I wouldn’t do this for posts giving a substantive take or more object-level content).
I’m not sure I quite understand the take from this post, but in case it’s clarifying many fund managers do talk to external people to help them evaluate a proposal, in cases where they don’t it’s generally because they feel they can evaluate the project by looking at sections of the application like their goals and track record.
> If this is the case, maybe it makes sense for EA Funds to consider having a separate fund for expert evaluation of promising projects?
This is supposed to be what each fund does right now.
I’m not sure why your application was rejected, as when I did a quick search, I couldn’t see any applications from your forum username.
Thank you for clarification!
>> If this is the case, maybe it makes sense for EA Funds to consider having a separate fund for expert evaluation of promising projects?
>This is supposed to be what each fund does right now.
And exactly how I used to think about. My misunderstanding then. Sorry for making a fuss out of nothing.
>I’m not sure why your application was rejected, as when I did a quick search, I couldn’t see any applications from your forum username.
Because I didn’t apply yet :) Before tried NLNet, ConvergentResearch, SingularityNet, and recently OpenPhilantropy’s “New moonshots for aligning superintelligence”
Nw, I think
It dawned on me why my proposals were ignored: Some no-name guy with a moonshot project, which feasibility is hard to assess without a proper expertise. It’s easier to ignore than apologize for having no capacity to evaluate.
Implies that you applied and were rejected because of a lack of expertise from EA Funds—might be worth quickly clarifying that you haven’t applied yet (if that’s the case).
You are absolutely right. Should I edit my post, delete it or leave it as it is with adding a comment? I’m new here and don’t know what is the right way to retract something. Already answered in LW with a link to your comment.
added: Just replaced “my proposals” with “my previous proposals to other funds”. Doesn’t change the narrative, only clarifies.
Any of those options sounds reasonable to me. If it were me and I no longer endorsed the post, then I would delete it (though I wouldn’t do this for posts giving a substantive take or more object-level content).