46

Kerry_Vaughan comments on Introducing the EA Funds - Effective Altruism Forum

posted by Post author: William_MacAskill on 09 February 2017 12:15AM
Comments (59)

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (59)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kerry_Vaughan 09 February 2017 09:22:26PM *  1 point [-]

Thanks for the feedback!

Two thoughts: 1) I don't think the long-term goal is that OpenPhil program officers are the only fund managers. Working with them was the best way to get an MVP version in place. In the long-run, we want to use the funds to offer worldview diversification and to expand the funding horizons of the EA community.

2)

There's a part of me that keeps insisting that it's counter-intuitive that Open Phil is having trouble making as many grants as it would like, while also employing people who will manage an EA fund.

I think I agree with you. However, since the OpenPhil program officers know what OpenPhil is funding it means that the funds should provide options that are at least as good as OpenPhil's funding. (See Carl Shulman's post on the subject.) The hope is that the "at least as good as OpenPhil" bar is higher than most donors can reach now, so the fund is among the most effective options for individual donors.

Let me know if that didn't answer the question.

Comment author: Larks 09 February 2017 11:18:08PM *  3 points [-]

However, since the OpenPhil program officers know what OpenPhil is funding it means that the funds should provide options that are at least as good as OpenPhil's funding. (See Carl Shulman's post on the subject.) The hope is that the "at least as good as OpenPhil" bar is higher than most donors can reach now, so the fund is among the most effective options for individual donors.

The article you link (quote below) suggests the opposite should be true - individual donors should be able to do at least better than OpenPhil.

Risk-neutral small donors should aim to make better charitable bets at the margin than giga-donors like the Open Philanthropy Project (Open Phil) and Good Ventures using donor lotteries, and can do at least as well as giga-donors by letting themselves be funged

Comment author: Kerry_Vaughan 10 February 2017 10:54:34PM 1 point [-]

The article you link (quote below) suggests the opposite should be true - individual donors should be able to do at least better than OpenPhil

We're making it easier for individual donors to at least be funged since our fund managers will have better information than most individual donors.

FAQ  |  contact@effective-altruism.com  |  © 2017 Effective Altruism Forum  |  Powered by reddit