I find this perspective (and its upvotes) pretty confusing, because:
Iām pretty confident that the majority of EA Funds donors choose which fund to donate to based far more on the cause area than the fund managersā tastes
And I think this really makes sense; itās a better idea to invest time in forming views about cause areas than in forming views about specifically the funding tastes of Buck, Michelle, Max, Ben, and Jonas, and then also the fund management teams for the other 3 funds.
The EA Funds pages also focus more on the cause area than on the fund managers.
The fund manager team regularly changes composition at least somewhat.
Some fund managers have not done any grantmaking before, at least publicly, so people wonāt initially know their fund tastes.
In this particular case, I think all fund managers except Jonas havenāt done public grantmaking before.
I think a donation to an EA Fund is typically intended to delegate to some fund managers to do whatever is best in a given area, in line with the principles described on the EA Funds page. It is not typically intended to delegate to those fund managers to do whatever they think is best with that money, except if we assume that what they think is best will always be something that is in that area and is in line with those principles described (in which case it would still be problematic for them to donate in other ways).
Likewise, if you pay a contractor to do X and then instead they do Y, this may well be problematic even if they think doing Y is better and even if they might have good judgement. And especially so if their ad for their services focused on X rather than on their individual track record, tastes, or good judgement.
To be clear, this comment isnāt intended as sharp criticism of any choices the EAIF made this round. I also didnāt donate to the EAIF this round and lean quite longtermist myself, so I donāt personally have any sense of my donation being used a way I donāt like, or something like that. Iām just responding to your comment.
---
Another way to put this is that if you donāt really see āa case for splitting responsibilities like thisā, then I think that means you donāt see a case for the current set up of the EA Funds (at least as a place for you specifically to donate), and so youāre not the relevant target audience?
(I feel like this will sound rude or something in written text without toneāapologies in advance if it does sound that way; thatās not my intent.)
Yeah, thatās a good point, that donors who donāt look at the grants (or know the individuals on the team much) will be confused if they do things outside the purpose of the team (e.g. donations to GiveDirectly, or a random science grant that just sounds cool), that sounds right. But I guess all of these grants seem to me fairly within the purview of EA Infrastructure?
The one-line description of the fund says:
The Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund aims to increase the impact of projects that use the principles of effective altruism, by increasing their access to talent, capital, and knowledge.
I expect that for all of these grants the grantmakers think that theyāre orgs that either āuse the principle of effective altruismā or help others do so.
I think Iād suggest instead that weeatquince name some specific grants and ask the fund managers the basic reason for why those grants seem to them like they help build EA Infrastructure (e.g. ask Michelle why CLTR seems to help things according to her) if thatās unclear to weeatquince.
Yeah, good point that these grants do seem to all fit that one-line description.
That said, I think that probably most or all grants from all 4 EA Funds would fit that descriptionāI think that that one-line description should probably be changed to make it clearer whatās distinctive about the Infrastructure Fund. (I acknowledge Iāve now switched from kind-of disagreeing with you to kind-of disagreeing with that part of how the EAIF present themselves.)
I think the rest of the āFund Scopeā section helps clarify the distinctive scope:
While the other three Funds support direct work on various causes, this Fund supports work that could multiply the impact of direct work, including projects that provide intellectual infrastructure for the effective altruism community, run events, disseminate information, or fundraise for effective charities. This will be achieved by supporting projects that:
Directly increase the number of people who are exposed to principles of effective altruism, or develop, refine or present such principles
Support the recruitment of talented people who can use their skills to make progress on important problems
Aim to build a global community of people who use principles of effective altruism as a core part of their decision-making process when deciding how they can have a positive impact on the world
Conduct research into prioritizing between or within different cause areas
Raise funds or otherwise support other highly-effective projects
Improve community health by promoting healthy norms for interaction and discourse, or assist in resolving grievances
Re-reading that, I now think Giving Green clearly does fit under EAIFās scope (āRaise funds or otherwise support other highly-effective projectsā). And it seems a bitclearer why the CLTR and Jakob Lohmar grants might fit, since I think they partly target the 1st, 3rd, and 4th of those things.
Though it still does seem to me like those two grants are probably better fits for LTFF.
And I also think āConduct research into prioritizing [...] within different cause areasā seems like a better fit for the relevant cause area. E.g., research about TAI timelines or the number of shrimp there are in the world should pretty clearly be under the scope of the LTFF and AWF, respectively, rather than EAIF. (So thatās another place where Iāve accidentally slipped into providing feedback on that fund page rather than disagreeing with you specifically.)
Though it still does seem to me like those two grants are probably better fits for LTFF.
But this line is what I am disagreeing with. Iām saying thereās a binary of āwithin scopeā or not, and then otherwise itās up to the fund to fund what they think is best according to their judgment about EA Infrastructure or the Long-Term Future or whatever. Do you think that the EAIF should be able to tell the LTFF to fund a project because the EAIF thinks itās worthwhile for EA Infrastructure, instead of using the EAIFās money? Alternatively, if the EAIF thinks something is worth money for EA Infrastructure reasons, if the grant is probably more naturally under the scope of āLong-Term Futureā, do you think they shouldnāt fund the grantee even if LTFF isnāt going to either?
Ah, this is a good point, and I think I understand where youāre coming from better now. Your first comment made me think you were contesting the idea that the funds should each have a āscopeā at all. But now I see itās just that you think the scopes will sometimes overlap, and that in those cases the grant should be able to be evaluated and funded by any fund itās within-scope for, without consideration of which fund itās more centrally within scope for. Right?
I think that sounds right to me, and I think that that argument + re-reading that āFund Scopeā section have together made it so that I think that EAIF granting to CLTR and Jakob Lohmar just actually makes sense. I.e., I think Iāve now changed my mind and become less confused about those decisions.
Though I still think it would probably make sense for Fund A to refer an application to Fund B if the project seems more centrally in-scope for Fund B, and let Fund B evaluate it first. Then if Fund B declines, Fund A could do their own evaluation and (if they want) fund the project, though perhaps somewhat updating negatively based on the info that Fund B declined funding. (Maybe this is roughly how it already works. And also I havenāt thought about this until writing this comment, so maybe there are strong arguments against this approach.)
(Again, I feel I should state explicitlyāto avoid anyone taking this as criticism of CLTR or Jakobāthat the issue was never that I thought CLTR or Jakob just shouldnāt get funding; it was just about clarity over what the EAIF would do.)
Though I still think it would probably make sense for Fund A to refer an application to Fund B if the project seems more centrally in-scope for Fund B, and let Fund B evaluate it first.
In theory, I agree. In practice, this shuffling around of grants costs some time (both in terms of fund manager work time, and in terms of calendar time grantseekers spend waiting for a decision), and I prefer spending that time making a larger number of good grants rather than on minor allocation improvements.
(That seems reasonableāIād have to have a clearer sense of relevant time costs etc. to form a better independent impression, but that general argument + the info that you believe this would overall not be worthwhile is sufficient to update me to that view.)
And btw, I think if there are particular grants that seem not in scope from a fund, is seems totally reasonable to ask them for their reasoning and update pos/āneg on them if the reasoning does/ādoesnāt check out. And itās also generally good to question the reasoning of a grant that doesnāt make sense to you.
I find this perspective (and its upvotes) pretty confusing, because:
Iām pretty confident that the majority of EA Funds donors choose which fund to donate to based far more on the cause area than the fund managersā tastes
And I think this really makes sense; itās a better idea to invest time in forming views about cause areas than in forming views about specifically the funding tastes of Buck, Michelle, Max, Ben, and Jonas, and then also the fund management teams for the other 3 funds.
The EA Funds pages also focus more on the cause area than on the fund managers.
E.g., āWhy donate to this fundā doesnāt mention any specific fund managers.
The fund manager team regularly changes composition at least somewhat.
Some fund managers have not done any grantmaking before, at least publicly, so people wonāt initially know their fund tastes.
In this particular case, I think all fund managers except Jonas havenāt done public grantmaking before.
I think a donation to an EA Fund is typically intended to delegate to some fund managers to do whatever is best in a given area, in line with the principles described on the EA Funds page. It is not typically intended to delegate to those fund managers to do whatever they think is best with that money, except if we assume that what they think is best will always be something that is in that area and is in line with those principles described (in which case it would still be problematic for them to donate in other ways).
Likewise, if you pay a contractor to do X and then instead they do Y, this may well be problematic even if they think doing Y is better and even if they might have good judgement. And especially so if their ad for their services focused on X rather than on their individual track record, tastes, or good judgement.
To be clear, this comment isnāt intended as sharp criticism of any choices the EAIF made this round. I also didnāt donate to the EAIF this round and lean quite longtermist myself, so I donāt personally have any sense of my donation being used a way I donāt like, or something like that. Iām just responding to your comment.
---
Another way to put this is that if you donāt really see āa case for splitting responsibilities like thisā, then I think that means you donāt see a case for the current set up of the EA Funds (at least as a place for you specifically to donate), and so youāre not the relevant target audience?
(I feel like this will sound rude or something in written text without toneāapologies in advance if it does sound that way; thatās not my intent.)
Yeah, thatās a good point, that donors who donāt look at the grants (or know the individuals on the team much) will be confused if they do things outside the purpose of the team (e.g. donations to GiveDirectly, or a random science grant that just sounds cool), that sounds right. But I guess all of these grants seem to me fairly within the purview of EA Infrastructure?
The one-line description of the fund says:
I expect that for all of these grants the grantmakers think that theyāre orgs that either āuse the principle of effective altruismā or help others do so.
I think Iād suggest instead that weeatquince name some specific grants and ask the fund managers the basic reason for why those grants seem to them like they help build EA Infrastructure (e.g. ask Michelle why CLTR seems to help things according to her) if thatās unclear to weeatquince.
Yeah, good point that these grants do seem to all fit that one-line description.
That said, I think that probably most or all grants from all 4 EA Funds would fit that descriptionāI think that that one-line description should probably be changed to make it clearer whatās distinctive about the Infrastructure Fund. (I acknowledge Iāve now switched from kind-of disagreeing with you to kind-of disagreeing with that part of how the EAIF present themselves.)
I think the rest of the āFund Scopeā section helps clarify the distinctive scope:
Re-reading that, I now think Giving Green clearly does fit under EAIFās scope (āRaise funds or otherwise support other highly-effective projectsā). And it seems a bit clearer why the CLTR and Jakob Lohmar grants might fit, since I think they partly target the 1st, 3rd, and 4th of those things.
Though it still does seem to me like those two grants are probably better fits for LTFF.
And I also think āConduct research into prioritizing [...] within different cause areasā seems like a better fit for the relevant cause area. E.g., research about TAI timelines or the number of shrimp there are in the world should pretty clearly be under the scope of the LTFF and AWF, respectively, rather than EAIF. (So thatās another place where Iāve accidentally slipped into providing feedback on that fund page rather than disagreeing with you specifically.)
But this line is what I am disagreeing with. Iām saying thereās a binary of āwithin scopeā or not, and then otherwise itās up to the fund to fund what they think is best according to their judgment about EA Infrastructure or the Long-Term Future or whatever. Do you think that the EAIF should be able to tell the LTFF to fund a project because the EAIF thinks itās worthwhile for EA Infrastructure, instead of using the EAIFās money? Alternatively, if the EAIF thinks something is worth money for EA Infrastructure reasons, if the grant is probably more naturally under the scope of āLong-Term Futureā, do you think they shouldnāt fund the grantee even if LTFF isnāt going to either?
Ah, this is a good point, and I think I understand where youāre coming from better now. Your first comment made me think you were contesting the idea that the funds should each have a āscopeā at all. But now I see itās just that you think the scopes will sometimes overlap, and that in those cases the grant should be able to be evaluated and funded by any fund itās within-scope for, without consideration of which fund itās more centrally within scope for. Right?
I think that sounds right to me, and I think that that argument + re-reading that āFund Scopeā section have together made it so that I think that EAIF granting to CLTR and Jakob Lohmar just actually makes sense. I.e., I think Iāve now changed my mind and become less confused about those decisions.
Though I still think it would probably make sense for Fund A to refer an application to Fund B if the project seems more centrally in-scope for Fund B, and let Fund B evaluate it first. Then if Fund B declines, Fund A could do their own evaluation and (if they want) fund the project, though perhaps somewhat updating negatively based on the info that Fund B declined funding. (Maybe this is roughly how it already works. And also I havenāt thought about this until writing this comment, so maybe there are strong arguments against this approach.)
(Again, I feel I should state explicitlyāto avoid anyone taking this as criticism of CLTR or Jakobāthat the issue was never that I thought CLTR or Jakob just shouldnāt get funding; it was just about clarity over what the EAIF would do.)
In theory, I agree. In practice, this shuffling around of grants costs some time (both in terms of fund manager work time, and in terms of calendar time grantseekers spend waiting for a decision), and I prefer spending that time making a larger number of good grants rather than on minor allocation improvements.
(That seems reasonableāIād have to have a clearer sense of relevant time costs etc. to form a better independent impression, but that general argument + the info that you believe this would overall not be worthwhile is sufficient to update me to that view.)
Yeah, I think you understand me better now.
And btw, I think if there are particular grants that seem not in scope from a fund, is seems totally reasonable to ask them for their reasoning and update pos/āneg on them if the reasoning does/ādoesnāt check out. And itās also generally good to question the reasoning of a grant that doesnāt make sense to you.