Thanks for this! Its mentioned in the post and James and Fluttershy have made the point, but I just wanted to emphasise the benefits to others of Open Philanthropy continuing to engage in public discourse. Especially as this article seems to focus mostly on the cost/benefits to Open Philanthropy itself (rather than to others) of Open Philanthropy engaging in public discourse.
The analogy of academia was used. One of the reasons academics publish is to get feedback, improve their reputation and to clarify their thinking. But another, perhaps more important, reason academics publish academic papers and popular articles is to spread knowledge.
As an organisation/individual becomes more expert and established, I agree that the benefits to itself decrease and the costs increase. But the benefit to others of their work increases. It might be argued that when one is starting out the benefits of public discourse go mostly to oneself, and when one is established the benefits go mostly to others.
So in Open Philanthropy’s case it seems clear that the benefits to itself (feedback, reputation, clarifying ideas) have decreased and the costs (time and risk) have increased. But the benefits to others of sharing knowledge have increased, as it has become more expert and better at communicating.
For example, speaking personally, I have found Open Philanthropy’s shallow investigations on Global Catastrophic Risks a very valuable resource in getting people up to speed – posts like Potential Risks from Advanced Artificial Intelligence: The Philanthropic Opportunity have also been very informative and useful. I’m sure people working on global poverty would agree.
Again, just wanted to emphasise that others get a lot of benefit from Open Philanthropy continuing to engage in public discourse (in the quantity and quality at which it does so now).
Very interesting idea, and potentially really useful for the community (and me personally!).
What’s the timeline for this?
I’m presuming that the Funds would be transparent about how much money is in them, how much has been given and why—is that the case? Also as a starter, has Nick written about how much is/was in his Fund and how its been spent?
This is a great idea and you’ve presented it fairly, clearly and persuasively. I’ve donated.
Hi everyone, I’m Haydn. I used to work at the Centre for Effective Altruism, now I work for a Member of the UK Parliament. Message me if you’re interested in politics and EA.
I don’t really understand the conclusion this post is arguing for (or if indeed there is one). In particular, I didn’t spot an answer to “how can we influence the long-term future?”.
A link to the (very good!) 2015 Strategy might be helpful:
How many people work full-time and part-time on GPP? What are sustainable growth predictions?
Do you model yourself as a think-tank?
What think-tanks have you looked at, spoken to, or modelled yourself upon?
Have you reached out to e.g. RUSI, BASIC, etc? Do you plan to?
What are your plans for the next a) 6 months b) year c) 5 years?
In what ways are you experimenting and iterating?
How many people have read your most popular content?
What are your next few marginal hires?
If a reader wants to work for GPP, what should they do/study/write/etc?
If a reader wants to help GPP, what should they do?
What would you do with a) £2,000 b) £10,000 c) £20,000?
What do you think your room-for-more-funding is?
You’re based in the UK—there’s about to be an election, then five years of a new government. How does that affect your plans?
When do you aim to influence debate, and policy—i.e. over what timescale? Are you trying to influence policy in 10 years, 20?
Who are the key decision-makers/stakeholders in your area? Have you mapped them out—how they relate, what their responsibilities are?
What Government Departments are you mainly interested in? Which are you monitoring? Are there any consultations open at the moment that you are submitting to? Same question for Parliamentary Committees.
Thanks for the question. Biodiversity loss and associated catastrophic ecosystem shifts are a contributor to existential risk. Partha’s review may influence UK and international policy.
We also have further publications forthcoming on the link between biodiversity and existential risk.
Warren introduced the No First Use Act (“It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first.”) and Gillibrand is a co-sponsor.
Peter’s question was one I asked in the previous post as well. I’m pleased with this answer, thanks Tara.
Does anyone have any idea when we’ll be able to embed YouTube videos on the forum?
If this research seems interesting to you, CSER is currently hiring!