Currently doing local AI safety Movement Building in Australia and NZ.
One difference between our perspectives is that I don't take for granted that this process will occur unless the conditions are right. And the faster a movement grows, the less likely it is for lessons to be passed on to those who are coming in. This isn't dismissing these people, just how group dynamics work and a reality of more experienced people having less time to engage.I want to see EA grow fast. But at a high enough speed, I'm not sure what exactly, at which this will most likely degrade our culture. All this said, I'm less concerned about this than before. As terrible as the FTX collapse and recent events have been, I wouldn't be surprised if we no longer have to worry about potentially growing too fast.
I suppose one of the main factors to take into consideration is what percent of donors want to fund cause agnostic EA projects vs. what percent want to fund any kind of EA-adjacent community building and want the fund managers to figure out what is most impactful with that.
Is this a new org or a rebranding of EV ops?
I'm against downvoting this article into the negative.I think it is worthwhile hearing someone's quick takes even when they don't have time to write a full response. Even if the article contains some misunderstandings (not claiming it does one way or the other), it still helps move the conversation forward by clarifying where the debate is at.
I wasn’t claiming that the current organisations haven’t had an impact, but that they haven’t really provided a path to solving this issue. Then again, maybe “solving” is a mistaken frame.
Apologies to Luke if this comment isn't helpful. If that's the case, just let me know. Happy to remove if I'm taking the conversation off-course.
I hope some of the other commenters have answers for you, but tbh, I don't think the limitation here is donations.This problem seems wildly intractable, but we could be wrong.Instead, I suspect the limitation would be more gather a group of intelligent, persistent and creative EA's to dedicate serious time to rethinking this whole issue from the ground up in case there's anything that has been missed. I wouldn't put high odds on this turning up much, but it seems worth a shot.
I'm skeptical.I've read their other comments. The initial comment sounded somewhat plausible, but their other comments sounded less like what I'd expect someone in that position to sound like.
That makes sense. However, I do think that showing that would be less discouraging for anyone around the bar, which are probably the people most important not to discourage (people significantly below would be wasting their time, people significantly above are more likely to be confident enough to apply).
I suspect there would be less potential discouragement effect if you listed some grants that were just over the bar?