I have to disagree with you on one point. EA is and has always been critically short of funding. It is that way before Anthropic, it will be that way after Anthropic, and everyone who ever complains that EA hasnāt managed to fix all the problems in the world yet needs to compare EAās total funding level to the total NATO defense budget and truly understand why that isāthe worldās central decision makers misallocate global financial priorities towards preparations for war rather than eradications of the root causes of war.
Thatās why we need the people who can do the very best work with the funding we have to come and network with us and learn there they might fit in. We are critically short of funding, and always in triage, but some things are triaged as worth it.
Post Anthropic funding weāll probably have about 50 billion dollars a year. Now, thatās not enough to sponsor every conceivable project that will make the world better, but it is enough to sponsor the main portfolio of the highest-impact projects.
I donāt think thatās āevery conceivable project that will make the world betterā, thatās basically via GiveDirectly which a lot of EAs contribute to and is consistently estimated to be within the EA GHD funding bar sphere and does joint projects with GiveWell, part of āthe main portfolioā if you will. Not to even start on the funding gaps in other bits of GHD, in animal welfare, in governance improvement, etc.
I understand that $50 billion sounds like a lot, and Iām really happy EA will be allocating more money effectively, but relative to both the scale of critical global need and the scope of possible global funding (shown via defense budgets) itās still tiny. We are a fraction of a shard of the size we āneed to beā.
Also I donāt think weāre disagreeing on the core point, which is that people who really want to improve the world effectively should come to an EAG and try to figure out how.
I have to disagree with you on one point. EA is and has always been critically short of funding. It is that way before Anthropic, it will be that way after Anthropic, and everyone who ever complains that EA hasnāt managed to fix all the problems in the world yet needs to compare EAās total funding level to the total NATO defense budget and truly understand why that isāthe worldās central decision makers misallocate global financial priorities towards preparations for war rather than eradications of the root causes of war.
Thatās why we need the people who can do the very best work with the funding we have to come and network with us and learn there they might fit in. We are critically short of funding, and always in triage, but some things are triaged as worth it.
Post Anthropic funding weāll probably have about 50 billion dollars a year. Now, thatās not enough to sponsor every conceivable project that will make the world better, but it is enough to sponsor the main portfolio of the highest-impact projects.
Ending global extreme poverty via evidence-backed targeted cash transfers would be roughly $300 billion a year https://āācega.berkeley.edu/āāend-of-poverty/āā
I donāt think thatās āevery conceivable project that will make the world betterā, thatās basically via GiveDirectly which a lot of EAs contribute to and is consistently estimated to be within the EA GHD funding bar sphere and does joint projects with GiveWell, part of āthe main portfolioā if you will. Not to even start on the funding gaps in other bits of GHD, in animal welfare, in governance improvement, etc.
I understand that $50 billion sounds like a lot, and Iām really happy EA will be allocating more money effectively, but relative to both the scale of critical global need and the scope of possible global funding (shown via defense budgets) itās still tiny. We are a fraction of a shard of the size we āneed to beā.
Also I donāt think weāre disagreeing on the core point, which is that people who really want to improve the world effectively should come to an EAG and try to figure out how.
Iām glad you had a good experience!
(Itās *roughly* $1 billion a year EAs have to allocate, whereas NATO spends about $1.5 trillion a year)