Regarding the last section: itâd be an interesting experiment to add a âdemocraticâ community-controlled fund to supplement the existing options. But I wouldnât want to lose the existing EA funds, with their vetted expert grantmakers. I personally trust (and agree with) the âcore EAsâ more than the âconcerned EAsâ, and would be less inclined to donate to a fund where the latter group had more influence. But by all means, let a thousand flowers bloomâfolks could then direct their donations to the fund thatâs managed as they think best.
Yeah, I strongly agree with this and wouldnât continue to donate to the EA fund I currently donate to if it became âmore democraticâ rather than being directed by its vetted expert grantmakers. Iâd be more than happy if a community-controlled fund was created, though.
To lend further support to the point that this post and your comment makes, making grantmaking âmore democraticâ through involving a group of concerned EAs seems analogous to making community housing decisions âmore democraticâ through community hall meetings. Those who attend community hall meetings arenât a representative sample of the community but merely those who have time (and also tend to be those who have more to lose from community housing projects).
So its likely that not only would concerned EAs not be experts in a particular domain but would also be unrepresentative of the community as a whole.
itâd be an interesting experiment to add a âdemocraticâ community-controlled fund to supplement the existing options
The idea seems intuitively appealing, an option for those who want to try it, see how it works. But I wonder whether the people who would fund this would actually prefer to participate in a donor lottery?
Curious to hear from anyone who would be excited to put their money a community-controlled fund.
I would probably donate a small amount, not because I think the EV would be higher, but because I assign some utility to the information value of seeing grant decisions by a truly independent set of decisionmakers. If there were consistent and significant differences from the grant portfolio of the usual expert decisionmakers, I would entertain the possibility that the usual decisionmakers had a blind spot (even though I would predict the probability as perhaps 25 percent, low confidence). If the democratic fund were small enough in comparison to the amount of expert-directed funding, and could be operated cheaply enough, losing a little EV would feel acceptable as a way to gain this information.
I think this yearâs donor lottery is likely to go to the benefactor, especially the higher dollar amounts, so will produce zero information value.
Great post. I strongly agree with the core point.
Regarding the last section: itâd be an interesting experiment to add a âdemocraticâ community-controlled fund to supplement the existing options. But I wouldnât want to lose the existing EA funds, with their vetted expert grantmakers. I personally trust (and agree with) the âcore EAsâ more than the âconcerned EAsâ, and would be less inclined to donate to a fund where the latter group had more influence. But by all means, let a thousand flowers bloomâfolks could then direct their donations to the fund thatâs managed as they think best.
[ETA: Just saw that Jason has already made a similar point.]
Yeah, I strongly agree with this and wouldnât continue to donate to the EA fund I currently donate to if it became âmore democraticâ rather than being directed by its vetted expert grantmakers. Iâd be more than happy if a community-controlled fund was created, though.
To lend further support to the point that this post and your comment makes, making grantmaking âmore democraticâ through involving a group of concerned EAs seems analogous to making community housing decisions âmore democraticâ through community hall meetings. Those who attend community hall meetings arenât a representative sample of the community but merely those who have time (and also tend to be those who have more to lose from community housing projects).
So its likely that not only would concerned EAs not be experts in a particular domain but would also be unrepresentative of the community as a whole.
The idea seems intuitively appealing, an option for those who want to try it, see how it works. But I wonder whether the people who would fund this would actually prefer to participate in a donor lottery?
Curious to hear from anyone who would be excited to put their money a community-controlled fund.
I would probably donate a small amount, not because I think the EV would be higher, but because I assign some utility to the information value of seeing grant decisions by a truly independent set of decisionmakers. If there were consistent and significant differences from the grant portfolio of the usual expert decisionmakers, I would entertain the possibility that the usual decisionmakers had a blind spot (even though I would predict the probability as perhaps 25 percent, low confidence). If the democratic fund were small enough in comparison to the amount of expert-directed funding, and could be operated cheaply enough, losing a little EV would feel acceptable as a way to gain this information.
I think this yearâs donor lottery is likely to go to the benefactor, especially the higher dollar amounts, so will produce zero information value.