TLDR: more practical applications of existing research.
I think that these days everything competes for attention (“attention economy”).
I think that popularising existing research and funding new—can go side by side.
But I wonder if the EA movement is allocating nearly enough money to new RCTs and program evaluations, or to R&D more broadly, so as to build out new evidence in a strategic way.
I’m more on the practical side, implementing what we know so far.
Just like a brilliant product—will it go to market organically or will require a marketing push? Same analogy is applicable to research—more mainstream attention, popularisation, impact, getting on Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman, that in turn can provide more funds and interest to fund new research.
Overall it seems it is a balance—more new research will naturally trigger more new high quality research and more new real-life implications.
Another benefit I can think of—INDEPENDENCE—whenever something is sponsored by someone I wonder about incentives and spheres of influence.
TLDR: more practical applications of existing research.
I think that these days everything competes for attention (“attention economy”).
I think that popularising existing research and funding new—can go side by side.
I’m more on the practical side, implementing what we know so far.
Just like a brilliant product—will it go to market organically or will require a marketing push? Same analogy is applicable to research—more mainstream attention, popularisation, impact, getting on Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman, that in turn can provide more funds and interest to fund new research.
Overall it seems it is a balance—more new research will naturally trigger more new high quality research and more new real-life implications.
Another benefit I can think of—INDEPENDENCE—whenever something is sponsored by someone I wonder about incentives and spheres of influence.