Overall I think all the core claims and implications sound right to me, but Iāll raise a few nit-picks in comments.
We could break down some of the key leadership positions needed to deploy these funds as follows:
Researchers able to come up with ideas for big projects, new cause areas, or other new ways to spend funds on a big scale
EA entrepreneurs/āmanagers/āresearch leads able to run these projects and hire lots of people
Grantmakers able to evaluate these projects
I agree with all that, but think that thatās a somewhat too narrow framing of how researchers can contribute to deploying these funds. Iād also highlight their ability to:
Help us sift through the existing ideas for projects, cause areas, āintermediate goalsā, etc. to work out what would be high-priority/ācost-effective (or even just what seems net-positive overall)
Generate or sharpen insights, concepts, and/āor vocabulary that can help the entrepreneurs, grantmakers, etc. do their work
E.g., as a (very new and temporary) grantmaker, I think Iāve probably done a better job because other people had previously developed the following concepts and terms and some analysis related to them:
I agree there are lots of forms of useful research that could feed into this, and in general better ideas feels like a key bottleneck for EA. Iām excited to see more āfoundationalā work and disentanglement as well. Though I do feel like at least right now thereās an especially big bottleneck for ideas for specific shovel ready projects that could absorb a lot of funding.
Thanks for this really interesting post!
Overall I think all the core claims and implications sound right to me, but Iāll raise a few nit-picks in comments.
I agree with all that, but think that thatās a somewhat too narrow framing of how researchers can contribute to deploying these funds. Iād also highlight their ability to:
Help us sift through the existing ideas for projects, cause areas, āintermediate goalsā, etc. to work out what would be high-priority/ācost-effective (or even just what seems net-positive overall)
See also parts of Luke Muehlhauserās A personal take on longtermist AI governance
Generate or sharpen insights, concepts, and/āor vocabulary that can help the entrepreneurs, grantmakers, etc. do their work
E.g., as a (very new and temporary) grantmaker, I think Iāve probably done a better job because other people had previously developed the following concepts and terms and some analysis related to them:
information hazards
the unilateralistās curse
disentanglement research
value of movement growth
talent constraints vs funding constraints vs vetting constraints
(a bunch of other things)
Maybe helping refine precise ideas for cause areas, projects, etc. (but Iām less sure what I mean by this)
(That said, I think some other people are more pessimistic than me either about how much research has helped on these fronts or how much itās likely to in future. See e.g. some other parts of Lukeās post or some comments on What are novel major insights from longtermist macrostrategy or global priorities research found since 2015?)
I agree there are lots of forms of useful research that could feed into this, and in general better ideas feels like a key bottleneck for EA. Iām excited to see more āfoundationalā work and disentanglement as well. Though I do feel like at least right now thereās an especially big bottleneck for ideas for specific shovel ready projects that could absorb a lot of funding.