I agree—people able to run big EA projects seem like one of our key bottlenecks right now. That was one of my motivations for writing this post, and this mini profile.
I’m especially excited about finding people who could run $100m+ per year ‘megaprojects’, as opposed to more non-profits in the $1-$10m per year range, though I agree this might require building a bigger pipeline of smaller projects.
I also agree it seems plausible that the culture of the movement is a bit biased against entrepreneurship, so we’re not attracting as many people with this skillset as we could given our current reach. I’d be keen to do more celebrating of people who have tried to start new things.
This said, it might be even more pressing simply to reach 2x as many people, and then we’ll find a bunch of founders among them.
I’d also want to be cautious about using the term ‘entrepreneur’ to describe what we’re looking for, since I think that tends to bring to mind a particular silicon valley type, which is often pretty different from the people who have succeeded running big projects in EA. E.g. classic entrepreneurship is often about quickly testing lots of things, whereas many EA projects require really good judgement. That’s why I cached it in terms of ‘people who could run big projects in EA’ (leaving it open about exactly which skills are most needed there).
To give a concrete example, I mention the example of ‘the type of person who could found CSET’ - and the skills there seem pretty different from the people who typically self-identify as entrepreneurs on HN etc.
I’m especially excited about finding people who could run $100m+ per year ‘megaprojects’, as opposed to more non-profits in the $1-$10m per year range, though I agree this might require building a bigger pipeline of smaller projects.
Do you think it is useful to speculate about what these orgs could be, in any sense (cause area, purpose, etc.)?
Maybe this speculation could be useful to give some sense/hint/structure to how these orgs can be fostered (as opposed to directly encouraging someone to create such an org). For example, it may guide focus on certain smaller orgs or promoting some kind of cultural change.
To give a concrete example, I mention the example of ‘the type of person who could found CSET’ - and the skills there seem pretty different from the people who typically self-identify as entrepreneurs on HN etc.
To try to be helpful, here’s a sample of some founders from orgs who received the 3 largest Open Phil grants.
I’d also want to be cautious about using the term ‘entrepreneur’ to describe what we’re looking for, since I think that tends to bring to mind a particular silicon valley type, which is often pretty different from the people who have succeeded running big projects in EA.
Indeed, at their current life stage (Sam Altman was a SV founder) these people are very different from the “move fast and break things” startup style.
Touching on @Ben_West’s comment, many of these founders seem similar in profile to founders at middle or larger size companies and also have significant scientific experience.
Matheny was a scientist and manager of research and Malaria Consortium’s founding team has multiple strong scientists. At the same time, these are people have very high human capital in the form of executive experience. Their profile seems normal for “CEOs”.
While many CEOs do have scientific degrees, the level of scientific prestige and activity among this group might be uncommon.
This pattern could be useful in some way (most obviously, you could just ask the current senior research leaders of EA aligned orgs/think tanks if they have a vision for a useful project).
Thanks for your response Benjamin (and Ben West asking a question)
Sorry for not being completely clear about this, but I pointed towards the profile of a (EA-style) charity entrepreneur which is indeed different from the regular SV co founder (although there are similarities, but let’s not go into the details). I think the mini profile you wrote about a non profit entrepreneur is great and I am happy to see that 80k pushes this. Hopefully the Community Building Program will follow since national and local chapters are for many people the first point of entrance into EA. It would be good if this program also encouraged local and national chapters to make valuable cheap tests in non profit entrepreneurship viable.
I am also very happy that you acknowledge that reaching out to get 2x as many people in is probably desirable. Also here I think that the “common EA opinion” shifted quite a lot over the ~two years I’ve been involved in EA, great to see!
I agree—people able to run big EA projects seem like one of our key bottlenecks right now. That was one of my motivations for writing this post, and this mini profile.
I’m especially excited about finding people who could run $100m+ per year ‘megaprojects’, as opposed to more non-profits in the $1-$10m per year range, though I agree this might require building a bigger pipeline of smaller projects.
I also agree it seems plausible that the culture of the movement is a bit biased against entrepreneurship, so we’re not attracting as many people with this skillset as we could given our current reach. I’d be keen to do more celebrating of people who have tried to start new things.
This said, it might be even more pressing simply to reach 2x as many people, and then we’ll find a bunch of founders among them.
I’d also want to be cautious about using the term ‘entrepreneur’ to describe what we’re looking for, since I think that tends to bring to mind a particular silicon valley type, which is often pretty different from the people who have succeeded running big projects in EA. E.g. classic entrepreneurship is often about quickly testing lots of things, whereas many EA projects require really good judgement. That’s why I cached it in terms of ‘people who could run big projects in EA’ (leaving it open about exactly which skills are most needed there).
To give a concrete example, I mention the example of ‘the type of person who could found CSET’ - and the skills there seem pretty different from the people who typically self-identify as entrepreneurs on HN etc.
Do you think it is useful to speculate about what these orgs could be, in any sense (cause area, purpose, etc.)?
Maybe this speculation could be useful to give some sense/hint/structure to how these orgs can be fostered (as opposed to directly encouraging someone to create such an org). For example, it may guide focus on certain smaller orgs or promoting some kind of cultural change.
To try to be helpful, here’s a sample of some founders from orgs who received the 3 largest Open Phil grants.
CSET—Jason Matheny—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Gaverick_Matheny
OpenAI—Sam Altman—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Altman
Malaria Consortium—Sylvia Meek—https://www.malariaconsortium.org/sylvia-meek/dr-sylvia-meek-1954-2016.htm
Indeed, at their current life stage (Sam Altman was a SV founder) these people are very different from the “move fast and break things” startup style.
Touching on @Ben_West’s comment, many of these founders seem similar in profile to founders at middle or larger size companies and also have significant scientific experience.
Matheny was a scientist and manager of research and Malaria Consortium’s founding team has multiple strong scientists. At the same time, these are people have very high human capital in the form of executive experience. Their profile seems normal for “CEOs”.
While many CEOs do have scientific degrees, the level of scientific prestige and activity among this group might be uncommon.
This pattern could be useful in some way (most obviously, you could just ask the current senior research leaders of EA aligned orgs/think tanks if they have a vision for a useful project).
This is being done here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ckcoSe3CS2n3BW3aT/what-ea-projects-could-grow-to-become-megaprojects
Thanks for pointing this out!
Thanks for your response Benjamin (and Ben West asking a question)
Sorry for not being completely clear about this, but I pointed towards the profile of a (EA-style) charity entrepreneur which is indeed different from the regular SV co founder (although there are similarities, but let’s not go into the details). I think the mini profile you wrote about a non profit entrepreneur is great and I am happy to see that 80k pushes this. Hopefully the Community Building Program will follow since national and local chapters are for many people the first point of entrance into EA. It would be good if this program also encouraged local and national chapters to make valuable cheap tests in non profit entrepreneurship viable.
I am also very happy that you acknowledge that reaching out to get 2x as many people in is probably desirable. Also here I think that the “common EA opinion” shifted quite a lot over the ~two years I’ve been involved in EA, great to see!