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).
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!