Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by BurnerExplainer
1 min read1 answer 5

33

Building effective altruismCommunityOpen PhilanthropyCriticism of effective altruist organizationsCriticism of work in effective altruism
Frontpage

Carnegie, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the National Council of Nonprofits guidance all have policies/guidance on conflict of interest that are publicly available (as highlighted in this comment).

Does Open Philanthropy also have a public document on its conflict of interest policy?

Given the prevalence of polyamory in the community (including amongst grantmakers) and the reported insularity / cliquey-ness of the Bay Area EA communities, I believe it makes sense for Open Philanthropy to make its internal policy on this public (and therefore open for critique).

I believe it also makes sense to show when policy may have been violated (especially in light of a rumour about a Senior Program Officer at OP and a grantee in a metamour-relationship being 'verified'.) I would find it hard to believe if the policy has never been violated across the 100s or 1000s of grants OP has made.

33

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


1 Answers sorted by
Top

Davidmanheim

22
1
0

They have a policy, as noted in the public document that clarifies how OpenPhil split from Givewell. but I do not know if it the new CoI policy for either org is public. The previous version of the policy, from when OpenPhil was part of Givewell, is here (Note: Link is to a .doc file.)

Excerpt from the previous policy: 
"Specifically, there may be no transaction(s) in which any board or staff members have material conflicting interests with the charity resulting from any relationship or business affiliation. Factors that will be considered when concluding whether or not a related party transaction constitutes a conflict of interest and if such a conflict is material, include, but are not limited to: any arm's length procedures established by the charity; the size of the transaction relative to like expenses of the charity; whether the interested party participated in the board vote on the transaction; if competitive bids were sought and whether the transaction is one-time, recurring or ongoing. "

Davidmanheim20
1
0

(And I pointed this out in the thread that had the comment you excerpted the other foundations' policies from.)

Reply
Comments5
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
aog43
13
3

This seems very important and I'm surprised it's been downvoted. Perhaps they've already done so, but it might be valuable for OpenPhil to seriously reconsider its conflict of interest policy. 

To answer the question, OpenPhil has a relationship disclosure policy. Before August 2017 they disclosed relationships publicly, but since then have disclosed only internally by default. Unlike the foundations you linked, OpenPhil does not require that employees with conflicts of interest remove themselves from the decisionmaking process for relevant grants. Instead, these conflicts are considered internally before grantmaking decisions are made. 

To point out the most obvious conflict of interest, CEO Holden Karnofsky is married to Daniella Amodei and brother in law to Dario Amodei. After OpenPhil donated $30M to OpenAI, the Amodei siblings were promoted to VP level positions at OpenAI. They have since left to cofound Anthropic, which received a $124M Series A from folks including Dustin Moskovitz, the primary funder of OpenPhil. OpenPhil has been fairly transparent about this, stating it in their grant report on OpenAI (and I believe I've seen it elsewhere).  But with OpenAI and Anthropic both contributing to the emerging arms race in language models, some have criticized the history of decisions that led to the success of these organizations. Putting optics aside, OpenPhil might want to consider whether a stronger stance against conflicts of interest might have led to different decisions, and whether those decisions would have been better or worse. 

Reply
Guy Raveh22
5
2

Anthropic, which received a $124M Series A from folks including Dustin Moskovitz, the primary funder of OpenPhil

Given that the investment didn't go through OpenPhil, saying this involves a conflict of interest is a big stretch.

Reply
Ofer4
0
0

OpenPhil has been fairly transparent about this, stating it in their grant report on OpenAI (and I believe I've seen it elsewhere).

Back in March 2017, in a writeup about the $30M grant recommendation to OpenAI, OpenPhil were transparent about HK (then-CEO of OpenPhil) being engaged to DA's sister, while DA was a researcher at OpenAI and also a technical advisor to OpenPhil and living in the same house as HK. (This was before the two siblings were appointed to VP positions at OpenAI, which I'm not aware was ever publicly reported by OpenPhil).

As you mentioned in your comment, OpenPhil changed their policy about publicly disclosing relationships. If today OpenPhil faces CoI situations that are similar to the ones they faced when recommending that $30M grant to OpenAI, they may not mention those CoIs publicly at all. It is also possible that the relationship disclosures about the $30M grant are publicly available on OpenPhil's website today only because they were publicly discussed prior to the change in OpenPhil's policy (I don't know whether they were). Quoting from OpenPhil's Relationship Disclosure Policy:

Previously, we also included relationship disclosures in our public grant writeups. As of August 2017, we generally no longer do so, and we have removed the bulk of historical disclosures from our website, though we have left a few in place where they had already been discussed in other public fora or were important to understanding the basic case for a grant. This decision was a result of our evolving thinking on what information is important to share publicly and our view that some disclosures seemed to unnecessarily infringe on the privacy of our staff and grantees. Given these considerations, while we no longer publish relationship disclosures by default, we may do so when we think it would help others learn from our work and maximize the impact of their own giving.

Reply
BurnerExplainer-2
1
3

Thank you for sharing. 

I wasn't aware that Open Philanthropy had a relationship disclosure policy. I wonder what other policies they have or had to prevent potential "favoritism" in their grantmaking.

Reply
aog18
5
0

Also I would suggest deleting the reference to the other particular relationship. Publicly discussing someone else’s relationships when they haven’t given consent seems unfair, particularly when the grant process didn’t require public disclosure. Given that several conflicts of interest have been voluntarily disclosed, I don’t think we need more examples to have a good conversation.

Reply
More from BurnerExplainer
48
Why People Use Burner Accounts: A Commentary on Blacklists, the EA "Inner Circle", and Funding
BurnerExplainer
· · 7m read
98
98
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
45
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
5
Introducing EA to United World Colleges? (UWC alum here, curious to explore the overlap)
Unwobblypanda
· · 1m read
1
1
16
Call For a University of Minnesota EA Group
Kenneth_Diao
· · 2m read
0
0
View more