One of the things I most appreciate about Founders Pledge’s work on this topic is that it gave me the concepts and terms of endogenous vs exogenous learning. However, when I used these concepts in conversation recently, I realised that they might be framed more narrowly than would be ideal.
The way those concepts are framed in this report seems to implicitly focus solely on changes in the frontiers of humanity’s understanding of a topic. (For readers who haven’t read the report, I’ll quote the relevant part in my reply to this comment.)
But I think it’s important to also think explicitly about:
Changes in how “close” to that frontier a specific actor’s knowledge on some topic is.
Changes in knowledge that is very specific to that actor
E.g., knowledge about how good that actor is at accomplishing some goal
E.g., knowledge how that actor’s epistemology or ethical intuitions would react to close engagement with a particular set of facts
E.g., if I look carefully at a bunch of info about sentience in nonhumans, given my own worldview and way of processing information, what would I then believe about which nonhumans are conscious, in what ways, and what ethical implications that has?
I think these points might have important implications for the question of giving now vs later (though I haven’t given it much thought yet). For example:
This may push in favour of trying to bring about endogenous learning rather than waiting for exogenous learning
Trying to bring about endogenous learning (i.e., giving so as to advance the frontiers of humanity’s knowledge on a topic) might sometimes also help a philanthropist to advance their own knowledge towards the current or future frontier.
And/or it might help them advance their knowledge of things specific to themselves.
It seems less likely that those outcomes would occur if one instead waits for the frontiers to be exogenously advanced.
Reasons why these things might be true include the following:
Trying to bring about endogenous learning requires more engagement with the area and the information, so it forces one to get a “headstart towards” or somewhat “keep up with” the frontiers of humanity’s knowledge on that area.
Trying to bring about endogenous learning makes it more valuable to help the philanthropist form accurate views (since they’re already giving money in this area), signals that they have “skin in the game”, gives them some prominence, etc. This could help them get relevant experts to talk to them, help them attract good grantmakers/researchers, etc.
I think Open Phil have stated that these sorts of things are a major part of why they want to already give substantial amounts in each area they work in.
I can’t remember where I’ve seen this written, but I think Holden Karnofsky says something similar in this Q&A.
This may also push in favour of doing at least a nontrivial amount of giving now rather than later.
This is for for similar reasons to those given above.
This may highlight the value of work to “distill” what’s already known, so that it can be learned more quickly and with higher fidelity (more nuanced understandings, less misunderstandings, etc.)
As noted, these are just some quick, low-confidence thoughts. (Also, I haven’t read the report last year, so I may be forgetting relevant things that the report already says.) I’d be interested to hear Sjir or other people’s reactions to these thoughts.
An advantage of investing to give is that it will allow us to learn about better giving opportunities over time, for instance through improvements in research methodology to detect such giving opportunities.
We should distinguish between two forms of learning — endogenous and exogenous:
Endogenous learning is learning that Mary brings about herself with her giving, for instance by funding research that helps prioritise amongst causes or by funding experiments with new interventions within a cause. Opportunities for endogenous learning can be a reason for her to give now rather than to invest to give.
Exogenous learning is learning that occurs regardless of Mary’s giving. It includes advances in the scientific community, new philanthropic interventions being invented and/or tried out by others with similar aims, moral progress, and more. It also captures the time needed for relevant knowledge to become available, e.g. an experiment might take time, research might need to be done in a certain order, or there might be a talent constraint in a research area that takes time to be resolved. When learning is done exogenously, there are advantages to waiting and hence to investing to give.
When Mary puts her funds in the Founders Pledge Investment Fund, she is able to benefit from the long-term-oriented research Founders Pledge does over the next ten years, and from the learnings the Founders Pledge research team derives from external research in that time period. Both of these constitute exogenous learnings from Mary’s perspective.
One of the things I most appreciate about Founders Pledge’s work on this topic is that it gave me the concepts and terms of endogenous vs exogenous learning. However, when I used these concepts in conversation recently, I realised that they might be framed more narrowly than would be ideal.
The way those concepts are framed in this report seems to implicitly focus solely on changes in the frontiers of humanity’s understanding of a topic. (For readers who haven’t read the report, I’ll quote the relevant part in my reply to this comment.)
But I think it’s important to also think explicitly about:
Changes in how “close” to that frontier a specific actor’s knowledge on some topic is.
Changes in knowledge that is very specific to that actor
E.g., knowledge about how good that actor is at accomplishing some goal
E.g., knowledge how that actor’s epistemology or ethical intuitions would react to close engagement with a particular set of facts
E.g., if I look carefully at a bunch of info about sentience in nonhumans, given my own worldview and way of processing information, what would I then believe about which nonhumans are conscious, in what ways, and what ethical implications that has?
I think these points might have important implications for the question of giving now vs later (though I haven’t given it much thought yet). For example:
This may push in favour of trying to bring about endogenous learning rather than waiting for exogenous learning
Trying to bring about endogenous learning (i.e., giving so as to advance the frontiers of humanity’s knowledge on a topic) might sometimes also help a philanthropist to advance their own knowledge towards the current or future frontier.
And/or it might help them advance their knowledge of things specific to themselves.
It seems less likely that those outcomes would occur if one instead waits for the frontiers to be exogenously advanced.
Reasons why these things might be true include the following:
Trying to bring about endogenous learning requires more engagement with the area and the information, so it forces one to get a “headstart towards” or somewhat “keep up with” the frontiers of humanity’s knowledge on that area.
Trying to bring about endogenous learning makes it more valuable to help the philanthropist form accurate views (since they’re already giving money in this area), signals that they have “skin in the game”, gives them some prominence, etc. This could help them get relevant experts to talk to them, help them attract good grantmakers/researchers, etc.
I think Open Phil have stated that these sorts of things are a major part of why they want to already give substantial amounts in each area they work in.
I can’t remember where I’ve seen this written, but I think Holden Karnofsky says something similar in this Q&A.
This may also push in favour of doing at least a nontrivial amount of giving now rather than later.
This is for for similar reasons to those given above.
This may highlight the value of work to “distill” what’s already known, so that it can be learned more quickly and with higher fidelity (more nuanced understandings, less misunderstandings, etc.)
As noted, these are just some quick, low-confidence thoughts. (Also, I haven’t read the report last year, so I may be forgetting relevant things that the report already says.) I’d be interested to hear Sjir or other people’s reactions to these thoughts.
Here’s the relevant excerpt from the report: