Pls see the note at the top of that post which clarifies it quickly became out of date.
Really, pacing is ultimately the donor's decision, inc. in the case of Good Ventures. Concretely, when I see others give to EA, I want to give faster bc I believe there will be more $s later.
Conversation
Nothing makes me more conservative than thinking people believe Good Ventures money "covers" all of EA. That is the world in which we must be extremely judicious, bc the opportunities are vast.
2
18
By "conservative" you mean conservative about spending money?
The last sentence makes me unsure I'm reading this right. If people correctly believer that Good Ventures money covers all of EA, wouldn't that mean that there are fewer opportunities out there?
1
3
It makes me more conservative about GV granting money yes. I do *not* think it is a correct belief that Good Ventures money covers all of EA - it is not nearly enough money. If people assume it is, we must be more careful so that it can be allocated to the best opps across time.
1
19
That seems backwards - credibly exhausting your surplus wealth ought to motivate others to step in at least on whichever programs have visibly high-value results.
3
7
"Covers all of EA" doesn't make sense as a literal claim, it has to be some kind of posturing coming from a perspective that's trying to avoid moral liability, not do the most good.
3
2
To me, the more obvious question is: if people are genuinely misinformed into thinking your spending covers all of EA (as opposed to doing motivated reasoning to donate less), couldn't you solve that by informing them?
1
7
I have tried. I cannot convince my own friends with hours of convos. I will keep trying.
2
29
Many of them do still donate - they just instinctively believe specialization is intrinsically better. It is very similar to Zvis argument.
1
19
The other day a very close friend said "of course I believe pandemic and AI risk are huge problems, but you've got them covered" and I screamed "NO WE ARE FAILING". That wasn't even about money per se, just making any kind of attempt.
7
27
179
In 2022, I don't understand what a claim that someone has pandemic risk "covered" could possibly mean except in the deeply simulacral sense that someone is responsible for performing the obligatory propitiatory rites.
1
BookmarkWhen people talk this kind of nonsense, it can be helpful to point it out to them, but doesn't make sense to interpret what they say as a direct representation of a literal belief, even if they're otherwise mostly reasonable.
3


