Thanks Michael! And I should note that FWIW I think my observation is more of a commentary on the "EA canon" than your list per se.
Thanks for investigating Jonas!
Please note that if your project relates to community building for local, regional, or national groups, you should apply to CEA’s Community Building Grants (CBG) programme.
CEA’s Community Building Grants page currently says applications are closed. When the closing was announced (August 2020), applications were expected to reopen in January. Do you know when applications are now expected to reopen? If it will be a long time and/or if CEA will only fund a narrow set of groups through CBG (which sounds like it may be the case), would the fund managers reconsider accepting applications from groups that don't have access to CBG?
Not only are all the authors male and WEIRD, they're also all white presenting.
Thanks for the explanations Max!
This is super helpful- thank you! I feel like I’ve got a much better understanding of your goals now. It really cleared things up to learn which of your multiple goals you're prioritizing most, as well as the precise targets you have for them (since you have a specific recruitment goal it might be worth editing the OP to add that).
I have two followup questions about the recruitment goal.
CEA’s Values document (thank you for sharing this) emphasizes the importance of “specific, focused goals.” It’s helpful to see the specific goals that specific teams have, but what do you see as the most important specific goals for CEA as an organization in 2021? I feel like this writeup gives me a sense of your plans for the year, but not the well-defined criteria you currently expect to use at the end of 2021 to judge whether the year was a success.
Thanks Jonas, glad to hear there are some related improvements in the works For whatever it’s worth, here’s an example of messaging that I think accurately captures what the fund has done, what it’s likely to do in the near term, and what it would ideally like to do:
The Long-Term Future Fund aims to positively influence the long-term trajectory of civilization by making grants that address global catastrophic risks or promote the adoption of longtermist thinking. While many grants so far have prioritized projects addressing risks posed by artificial intelligence (and the grantmakers expect to continue this at least in the short term), the Fund is open to funding, and welcomes applications from, a broader range of activities related to the long-term future.
Which of these two sentences, both from the fund page, do you think describes the fund more accurately?
I'd say 2 is clearly more accurate, and I think the feedback you've received about donors being surprised at how many AI grants were made suggests I'm not alone.
Good point! I'd say ideally the messaging should describe both forward and backward looking donations, and if they differ, why. I don't think this needs to be particularly lengthy, a few sentences could do it.