BLUF:
* To determine whether AI is ‘improving exponentially’, ‘hitting the wall’, or any other claim which involves a quantity or magnitude (e.g. ‘This model was a big leap/small increment’). We need a good y-axis: an interval scale of AI capability which means +1 unit always represents the same degree of ‘how much better’, in the same way +1 degree Celsius is always the same amount of ‘how much hotter’.
* Yet there is no good y-axis for AI capability. All our...
TL;DR
* The Long-Term Future Fund is closing down, and EA Funds is launching the Transformative AI Fund with a new full-time team.
* The fund's primary focus is technical AI safety and AI governance (including post-AGI governance), as well as supporting fields such as field-building and forecasting. We'll also consider non-GCR implications of transformative AI such as flourishing futures and digital...
Public service announcement
1. Applications are now open for our first ever round of the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program dedicated exclusively to animal welfare. Learn more about what’s different this round here and apply...
EA Funds rejected my grant application for a small exploratory community building grant, and did not leave any actual feedback beyond a generic rejection. On top of that, in the same email they leave a link asking for feedback "How did we do? We would really appreciate your feedback on your experience applying for a grant. It takes just a minute and helps us improve." Lol. I wish they could have taken a minute and given me feedback. It sure would help me improve!
After having done community building for almost a year as a volunteer this feels really frustrating and extremely demotivating.
I'm sorry to hear the experience feels really frustrating and demotivating.
I wrote some notes on grantmaking in the past which might be relevant here, particularly this section on why grantmakers don't usually give feedback.
(I work part-time for EA Funds. I did not review your application)
Incredibly frustrating and I feel for you. I for one think the grant makers underestimate the risks of playing a god role where you just dish out cash without a clear rubric(not saying they don't have a consistent process, just from the outside there isn't much legibility). If you read the infrastructure info page (assuming you applied there), there is some substance but not so much that you would truly have any idea why they rejected you.
Stuff like this is one reason why I think our social financing should head in the direction of impact markets and away from grantmaking.
It's sort of implicitly saying "I think your that your time, and your development, is worth much less than mine". I wish we were the kind of community where people would say that to my face, then we could have a conversation and find out whether that's really true.
Damn. I don't think you're literally doing the single most important thing in the world, but I think you're well worth funding for what you're doing, and wish CEA would see that. I do, however, think it's sort of hard to understand what you're doing for people who can't see it, so references might be key. I don't really know, though.
Note that EA Funds is not part of CEA.
(I work for EA Funds' Long-term Future Fund. I did not evaluate this grant).
Thanks for correction!