Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by Buck, ClaireZabel
2 min read 5

104

Building effective altruismCommunityOpportunities to take actionEffective altruism groupsAI safety groupsEffective altruism fundingEffective Altruism FundsEffective Altruism Infrastructure Fund
Frontpage

This post was written by Buck and Claire Zabel but it’s written in Buck’s voice, and “I” here refers to Buck, because it’s about grantmaking that he might do. (Claire contributed in her personal capacity, not as an Open Phil grantmaker). 

In addition to accepting applications for EA groups in some locations as part of my EAIF grantmaking, I am interested in evaluating applications from people who run groups (in-person or online, full-time or part-time) on a variety of related topics, including:

  • Reading groups, eg for The Precipice or Scout Mindset
  • Groups at companies, online-only groups, and other groups not based in particular geographic locations or universities.
  • Groups discussing blogs or forums that are popular with EAs, such as Slate Star Codex / Astral Codex Ten or LessWrong.
  • Longtermist-only, AI-centric or biosafety-centric groups, animal welfare groups, or other groups that address only a single EA cause area. (I might refer these applications to the Long-Term Future Fund or the Animal Welfare Fund as appropriate; both of these funds have confirmed to me that they’re interested in making grants of this type.)

I also welcome applications from people who do or want to do work for existing groups, or group organizers who want funding to hire someone else to work with them. Eg: 

  • Maintaining or overhauling group websites, if you think this is worthwhile for your particular group
  • Working 10hrs/week on a student group
  • Running group mailing lists

In cases where the project/expense isn’t a good fit for the EA Funds, but I think it’s worth supporting, I am likely able to offer alternative sources of funds.

I might stop doing this if someone appears who’s able to commit more time and thought to funding and supporting these kinds of groups, but for the time being I want to offer folks who want to work on these kinds of things a chance to request support.

I think that people who put serious time into creating high-quality groups deserve compensation for the time they put in, so please don’t let thoughts like “I only work on this for 10 hours a week” or “I’m happy to do this in a volunteer capacity” discourage you from applying. If you’re unsure if something is a reasonable fit, feel free to email me (bshlegeris@gmail.com) and ask before applying. Depending on your cost of living, ask for a rate of $20-50 per hour (this includes employer's payroll tax and would correspond to ~$15-40/h gross salary).

The EAIF application form is here; you should also feel free to email me any questions you have about this.

104

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments5


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Chris Leong2
0
0

Hey Buck, I guess I'm curious because you linked to the EAIF form down the bottom, but the latest payout report didn't include any payouts to Less Wrong or ASX groups. Perhaps you could clarify?

Reply
Max_Daniel11
0
0

[I am a fund manager at the EAIF.] From memory, this is simply because we received no or almost no application from such groups in the relevant period, i.e. May to August. Since September, I believe we made:

  • One small grant to a rationality group,
  • One small grant to an animal-focused group, and
  • Referred a medium grant for organizing ACX groups to a private funder.

Again, this is from memory, so I might have forgotten about a few cases. Qualitatively, it definitely is still the case that we're getting almost no applications from non-EA-branded groups; like I'm very confident we got >25 grant applications from EA groups since September, but less than three applications each for animal, rationality, ACX, etc. groups.

Reply
Chris Leong2
0
0

I find that surprising. Any thoughts on why that might be? Do you think that groups don't know that they can apply or that most groups aren't really doing much in the way of activities that would benefit from funding?

Reply
Max_Daniel4
0
0

I don't really have relevant data – my guess is the effect is 65% due to simply fewer such groups existing in the first place, and 35% due to such groups being less aware that they can apply for funding. 

(Though I think this split depends a lot on how broad we consider the relevant population of groups to be – e.g., if we counted all university groups having anything to do with animal welfare, whether or not they are particularly effectiveness-minded, then the claim that fewer such groups exist may be false.)

But my guess is very uncertain since I have very little familiarity with what kind of groups are existing at universities in the English-speaking world, so I'd be very interested in hearing from someone who might have a more informed impression.

Reply
Hamp1
0
0

Oh this is interesting! Sent you an email :)

Reply
More from Buck
179
A freshman year during the AI midgame: my approach to the next year
Buck
· · 8m read
30
30
178
Thoughts on whether we're living at the most influential time in history
Buck
· · 11m read
66
66
66
The current alignment plan, and how we might improve it | EAG Bay Area 23
Buck
· · 39m read
0
0
View more
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
TL;DR In a sentence:  We are shifting our strategic focus to put our proactive effort towards helping people work on safely navigating the transition to a world with AGI, while keeping our existing content up. In more detail: We think it’s plausible that frontier AI companies will develop AGI by 2030. Given the significant risks involved, and the fairly limited amount of work that’s been done to reduce these risks, 80,000 Hours is adopting a new strategic approach to focus our efforts in this area.   During 2025, we are prioritising: 1. Deepening our understanding as an organisation of how to improve the chances that the development of AI goes well 2. Communicating why and how people can contribute to reducing the risks 3. Connecting our users with impactful roles in this field 4. And fostering an internal culture which helps us to achieve these goals We remain focused on impactful careers, and we plan to keep our existing written and audio content accessible to users. However, we are narrowing our focus as we think that most of the very best ways to have impact with one’s career now involve helping make the transition to a world with AGI go well.   This post goes into more detail on why we’ve updated our strategic direction, how we hope to achieve it, what we think the community implications might be, and answers some potential questions. Why we’re updating our strategic direction Since 2016, we've ranked ‘risks from artificial intelligence’ as our top pressing problem. Whilst we’ve provided research and support on how to work on reducing AI risks since that point (and before!), we’ve put in varying amounts of investment over time and between programmes. We think we should consolidate our effort and focus because:   * We think that AGI by 2030 is plausible — and this is much sooner than most of us would have predicted 5 years ago. This is far from guaranteed, but we think the view is compelling based on analysis of the current flow of inputs into AI
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
32
Introducing Effective Accountability: Project and Job Search Accountability Groups
2 authors
· · 2m read
1
1
15
Applications to EAGxCDMX close in a week!
cescorza
· · 2m read
0
0
50
What comes after the Introduction Fellowship? A tool and approach for community organizers
Brooke O'Connell 🔸
· · 5m read
9
9
View more