Post Anthropic funding we’ll probably have about 50 billion dollars a year. Now, that’s 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 don’t think that’s “every conceivable project that will make the world better”, that’s 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 “the main portfolio” 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 I’m 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) it’s still tiny. We are a fraction of a shard of the size we “need to be”.
Also I don’t think we’re 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.
Post Anthropic funding we’ll probably have about 50 billion dollars a year. Now, that’s 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://cega.berkeley.edu/end-of-poverty/
I don’t think that’s “every conceivable project that will make the world better”, that’s 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 “the main portfolio” 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 I’m 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) it’s still tiny. We are a fraction of a shard of the size we “need to be”.
Also I don’t think we’re 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’m glad you had a good experience!