While I think there's some merit to the argument you put forth here, I think it discounts how much of a negative impact content that errs on the side of controversial can have on people's inclinations towards an organization/idea/thing. Yes, controversial (i.e. polarizing) content tends to reach farther in certain circles, thereby increasing the likelihood of capturing people were already inclined to join a given movement, but it can just as easily build opposition to a movement, which can become a serious hindrance to a movement's community health and growth in the long-term. If you haven't come across it, I'd recommend checking out Owen Cotton-Barrat's "How valuable is movement growth?" for more on this idea.
Hey Luke, great work thus far! Props to you and the rest of the GWWC and EA NYC team for making this data available in a user-friendly format.I know this is a big ask, but I would love to see this data visualized in something like a sankey diagram (broken down by core cause area, sub-case area, and finally individual charity, for example). One of the things I've always been curious about is how under/overfunded a given charity or philanthropic fund is relative to other entities in the same core or sub- cause area (i.e. donor coordination problem), and I think visualizations like this could provide some really interesting insights to individual donors and fund managers alike.
Alternatively, providing a way to export this data to a CSV or creating an API for accessing the data could enable other people (e.g. me) to develop and share visualizations like the one described above.Looking forward to seeing where this goes!
Great message and fun to read. Although I'm skeptical of your grandma's personal fit, it certainly sounds like she has the passion to become an exceptional AI safety researcher. ;)