A) If we call the quality threshold for projects T, T_G = T_L = T. In addition, project-funding is allocated by whether, for project p, p > T... ...and G vs L allocations are determined by how many projects are (anticipated to) pass this threshold from each category.
B) With OP = all projects p such that p was not funded by FTX and is likely to seek Open Philanthropy funding, and L_OP being the longtermist subset of OP, and L_FTX = all L such that L was funded by FTX and now seeks OP funding:
sum_of_funding(p in L_OP such that ((p > T) and (p > x for all x in L_FTX))) >= current_OP_longtermist_funding.
First of all, OP funding won't currently be reallocated to FTX projects, because better non-FTX projects crowd them out of OP's current allocation for this area. And also:
count(p in OP such that ((p > T) and (p > x for all x in G_FTX))) is large -> count(L_OP > T)/(cout(OP > T)) ~= count((L_OP +FTX) > T)/count((OP + FTX) > T)
Second of all, since there are so many projects applying to OPhil which are better than T AND better than the FTX ones... ...the addition of the FTX projects shouldn't significantly affect the proportion of 'good enough' projects which are longtermist... ...meaning that long-term funding allocations between global-health vs longtermist cause-categories also shouldn't be affected.
Of course, I know very little about this topic, having come in from the LessWrong side of things, so I can't comment as to the accuracy of the above claims.
If I may:
I interpreted Jack as saying that...
A) If we call the quality threshold for projects T, T_G = T_L = T.
In addition, project-funding is allocated by whether, for project p, p > T...
...and G vs L allocations are determined by how many projects are (anticipated to) pass this threshold from each category.
B) With OP = all projects p such that p was not funded by FTX and is likely to seek Open Philanthropy funding, and L_OP being the longtermist subset of OP,
and L_FTX = all L such that L was funded by FTX and now seeks OP funding:
sum_of_funding(p in L_OP such that ((p > T) and (p > x for all x in L_FTX)))
>=
current_OP_longtermist_funding.
First of all, OP funding won't currently be reallocated to FTX projects, because better non-FTX projects crowd them out of OP's current allocation for this area. And also:
count(p in OP such that ((p > T) and (p > x for all x in G_FTX))) is large
->
count(L_OP > T)/(cout(OP > T)) ~= count((L_OP +FTX) > T)/count((OP + FTX) > T)
Second of all, since there are so many projects applying to OPhil which are better than T AND better than the FTX ones...
...the addition of the FTX projects shouldn't significantly affect the proportion of 'good enough' projects which are longtermist...
...meaning that long-term funding allocations between global-health vs longtermist cause-categories also shouldn't be affected.
Of course, I know very little about this topic, having come in from the LessWrong side of things, so I can't comment as to the accuracy of the above claims.