without an explanation of why they are being funded from the Infrastructure Fund
In the introduction, we wrote the following. Perhaps you missed it? (Or perhaps you were interested in a per-grant explanation, or the explanation seemed insufficient to you?)
Some of the grants are oriented primarily towards causes that are typically prioritized from a ‘non-longtermist’ perspective; others primarily toward causes that are typically prioritized for longtermist reasons. The EAIF makes grants towards longtermist projects if a) the grantseeker decided to apply to the EAIF (rather than the Long-Term Future Fund), b) the intervention is at a meta level or aims to build infrastructure in some sense, or c) the work spans multiple causes (whether the case for them is longtermist or not). We generally strive to maintain an overall balance between different worldviews according to the degree they seem plausible to the committee.
I agree with Michael above that a) seems is a legit administrative hassle but it seems like the kind of think I would be excited to see resolved when you have capacity to think about it. Maybe each fund could have some discretionary money from the other fund.
An explanation per grant would be super too as an where such a thing is possible!
I don’t suppose you would mind clarifying the logical structure here:
The EAIF makes grants towards longtermist projects if a) the grantseeker decided to apply to the EAIF (rather than the Long-Term Future Fund), b) the intervention is at a meta level or aims to build infrastructure in some sense, or c) the work spans multiple causes (whether the case for them is longtermist or not).
My intuitive reading of this (based on the commas, the ‘or’, and the absence of ‘and’) is:
a OR b OR c
i.e., satisfying any one of the three suffices. But I’m guessing that what you meant to write was
In the introduction, we wrote the following. Perhaps you missed it? (Or perhaps you were interested in a per-grant explanation, or the explanation seemed insufficient to you?)
You are correct – sorry I missed that.
I agree with Michael above that a) seems is a legit administrative hassle but it seems like the kind of think I would be excited to see resolved when you have capacity to think about it. Maybe each fund could have some discretionary money from the other fund.
An explanation per grant would be super too as an where such a thing is possible!
(EDIT: PS. My reply to Ben above might be useful context too: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zAEC8BuLYdKmH54t7/ea-infrastructure-fund-may-2021-grant-recommendations?commentId=qHMosynpxRB8hjycp#sPabLWWyCjxWfrA6E)
I don’t suppose you would mind clarifying the logical structure here:
My intuitive reading of this (based on the commas, the ‘or’, and the absence of ‘and’) is:
i.e., satisfying any one of the three suffices. But I’m guessing that what you meant to write was
which would seem more sensible?
Yeah, the latter is what I meant to say, thanks for clarifying.
FWIW I had assumed the former was the case. Thank you for clarifying.
I had assumed the former as
it felt like the logical reading of the phrasing of the above
my read of the things funded in this round seemed to be that some of them don’t appear to be b OR c (unless b and c are interpreted very broadly).