By "game theory" I mean GiveWell/OpenPhil making other donors give money by splitting gaps, which is explicitly in blog.givewell.org/2015/11/25/goo.
If this is a question of timing, it's surprising that GiveWell gives this timing recommendation to OpenPhil, but not to other donors.
Conversation
Pls see the note at the top of that post which clarifies it quickly became out of date.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.
1
14
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.
In practice is this is an equating of 'you are spending all the money that we know how to spend on this' with 'the problem must be solved then'? And how much of that is the model of 'my job is to give money so my work here is done' or something like that?
1
18
Show replies
This is a positive update for me! I did not know you knew that! Most people manage to not know that sort of thing!
1
67
Glad I'm making you proud with my pessimism. Couldn't have done it without you.
1
75
Show replies
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
9
One donor “covering” pandemic/AI risk seems like it would be about as effective as one VC “covering” fintech.
4
Show more replies







