Ozzie Gooen

9509 karmaJoined Berkeley, CA, USA


I'm currently researching forecasting and epistemics as part of the Quantified Uncertainty Research Institute.


Amibitous Altruistic Software Efforts


Topic contributions

Could be! 

I assume the space is big enough, it could another absorb 20-60 people plus.

I've also heard of some other high network projects coming from Charity Entrepreneurship, but I haven't investigated. 

I've been thinking about this issue recently too. I think it's pretty clear in the case of Warren Buffet and other ultra-wealthy.

Generally, I think EAs sort of live and breath this stuff, and billionaires/major donors are typically in a completely different world, and they generally barely care about it.

I've been asking around about efforts to get more rich donors. I think Longview is often heralded as the biggest bet now, though of course it's limited in size. My guess is that there should be much more work done here - though at the same time - I think that this sort of work is quite difficult, thankless, risky (very likely to deliver no results), is often a big culture clash, etc.

Like, we need to allocate promising people to spend huge amounts of time with a lot of mostly-apathetic and highly selfish (vs. what we are used to around EA) people, with a high likelihood of seeing no results after 5-30 years. 

How can we best find new EA donors?

I have a lot of respect for OP, but I think it's clear that we could really use a larger funding base. My guess is that there should be a lot more thinking here.

Where do we want EA to be in ~20 years?

I'd like there to be more envisioning of what sorts of cultures, strengths, and community we want to aim for. I think there's not much attention here now.

Why, if anyone, should be leaders within Effective Altruism?

I think that OP often actively doesn't want much responsibility. CEA is the more obvious fit, but they often can only do so much, and also they arguably very much represent OP's interests more than that of EA community members. (just look at where their funding is coming from, or the fact that there's no way for EA community members to vote on their board or anything). 

I think that there's a clear responsibility gap and would like to see more understanding here, along with ideally plans of how things can improve.

My quick guess is that the answer is pretty simple and boring. Like, "things were just a mess on the future fund level, and they were expecting things to get better over time." I'd expect that there are like 5 people who really know the answer, and speculation by the rest of us won't help much.

This is very similar to my current stance. 


> EA AWF’s comparative advantage is often in funding small and medium-scale projects and I think it makes sense to serve this role in the project development pipeline. 

Yea, I'm curious how true that is. This assumes that OP does a job that's hard-to-beat for the larger projects, among all sub-causes of animal welfare. Also, it seems unhealthy to me for OP to be such an overwhelming donor to some of these groups (I assume it is for Animals, similar to other some of longtermism/EA). 

Again, I don't place a huge amount of confidence here, but I think among the worlds where a big mistake is being made, this seems like a more likely case to me. 

Another idea could be to ask, "How many EA resources should go do this, per year, for the next 10 years?" 

Options could be things like, 
"$0", "$100k", "1M", "100M", etc.

Also, maybe there could be a second question for, "How sure are you about this?" 

Load more