Published on June 4, 2021 5:07 PM GMT

This post summarizes the way I currently think about career choice for longtermists. I have put much less time into thinking about this than 80,000 Hours, but I think it's valuable for there to be multiple perspectives on this topic out there.

While the jobs I list overlap heavily with the jobs 80,000 Hours lists, I organize them and conceptualize them differently. 80,000 Hours tends to emphasize "paths" to particular roles working on particular causes; by contrast, I emphasize "aptitudes" one can build in a wide variety of roles and causes (including non-effective-altruist organizations) and then apply to a wide variety of longtermist-relevant jobs (often with options working on more than one cause). Example aptitudes include: "helping organizations achieve their objectives via good business practices," "evaluating claims against each other," "communicating already-existing ideas to not-yet-sold audiences," etc.

(Other frameworks for career choice include starting with causes (AI safety, biorisk, etc.) or heuristics ("Do work you can be great at," "Do work that builds your career capital and gives you more options.") I tend to feel people should consider multiple frameworks when making career choices, since any one framework can contain useful insight, but risks being too dogmatic and specific for individual cases.)

For each aptitude I list, I include ideas for how to explore the aptitude and tell whether one is on track. Something I like about an aptitude-based framework is that it is often relatively straightforward to get a sense of one's promise for, and progress on, a given "aptitude" if one chooses to do so. This contrasts with cause-based and path-based approaches, where there's a lot of happenstance in whether there is a job available in a given cause or on a given path, making it hard for many people to get a clear sense of their fit for their first-choice cause/path and making it hard to know what to do next. This framework won't make it easier for people to get the jobs they want, but it might make it easier for them to start learning about what sort of work is and isn't likely to be a fit.

I’ve tried to list aptitudes that seem to have relatively high potential for contributing directly to longtermist goals. I’m sure there are aptitudes I should have included and didn’t, including aptitudes that don’t seem particularly promising from a longtermist perspective now but could become more so in the future.

In many cases, developing a listed aptitude is no guarantee of being able to get a job directly focused on top longtermist goals. Longtermism is a fairly young lens on the world, and there are (at least today) a relatively small number of jobs fitting that description. However, I also believe that even if one never gets such a job, there are a lot of opportunities to contribute to top longtermist goals, using whatever job and aptitudes one does have. To flesh out this view, I lay out an "aptitude-agnostic" vision for contributing to longtermism.

Some longtermism-relevant aptitudes

"Organization building, running, and boosting" aptitudes

Basic profile: helping an organization by bringing "generally useful" skills to it. By "generally useful" skills, I mean skills that could help a wide variety of organizations accomplish a wide variety of different objectives. Such skills could include:

Business operations and project management (including setting objectives, metrics, etc.)

People management and management coaching (some manager jobs require specialized skills, but some just require general management-associated skills)

Executive leadership (setting and enforcing organization-wide goals, making top-level decisions about budgeting, etc.)

Recruiting

Fundraising and marketing

Human resources

Office management

Events management

Assistant and administrative work

Corporate communications and public relations

Finance and accounting

Corporate law

Beth Jones (Open Philanthropy Director...

Published on June 4, 2021 5:07 PM GMT

This post summarizes the way I currently think about career choice for longtermists. I have put much less time into thinking about this than 80,000 Hours, but I think it's valuable for there to be multiple perspectives on this topic out there.

While the jobs I list overlap heavily with the jobs 80,000 Hours lists, I organize them and conceptualize them differently. 80,000 Hours tends to emphasize "paths" to particular roles working on particular causes; by contrast, I emphasize "aptitudes" one can build in a wide variety of roles and causes (including non-effective-altruist organizations) and then apply to a wide variety of longtermist-relevant jobs (often with options working on more than one cause). Example aptitudes include: "helping organizations achieve their objectives via good business practices," "evaluating claims against each other," "communicating already-existing ideas to not-yet-sold audiences," etc.

(Other frameworks for career choice include starting with causes (AI safety, biorisk, etc.) or heuristics ("Do work you can be great at," "Do work that builds your career capital and gives you more options.") I tend to feel people should consider multiple frameworks when making career choices, since any one framework can contain useful insight, but risks being too dogmatic and specific for individual cases.)

For each aptitude I list, I include ideas for how to explore the aptitude and tell whether one is on track. Something I like about an aptitude-based framework is that it is often relatively straightforward to get a sense of one's promise for, and progress on, a given "aptitude" if one chooses to do so. This contrasts with cause-based and path-based approaches, where there's a lot of happenstance in whether there is a job available in a given cause or on a given path, making it hard for many people to get a clear sense of their fit for their first-choice cause/path and making it hard to know what to do next. This framework won't make it easier for people to get the jobs they want, but it might make it easier for them to start learning about what sort of work is and isn't likely to be a fit.

I’ve tried to list aptitudes that seem to have relatively high potential for contributing directly to longtermist goals. I’m sure there are aptitudes I should have included and didn’t, including aptitudes that don’t seem particularly promising from a longtermist perspective now but could become more so in the future.

In many cases, developing a listed aptitude is no guarantee of being able to get a job directly focused on top longtermist goals. Longtermism is a fairly young lens on the world, and there are (at least today) a relatively small number of jobs fitting that description. However, I also believe that even if one never gets such a job, there are a lot of opportunities to contribute to top longtermist goals, using whatever job and aptitudes one does have. To flesh out this view, I lay out an "aptitude-agnostic" vision for contributing to longtermism.

Some longtermism-relevant aptitudes

"Organization building, running, and boosting" aptitudes

Basic profile: helping an organization by bringing "generally useful" skills to it. By "generally useful" skills, I mean skills that could help a wide variety of organizations accomplish a wide variety of different objectives. Such skills could include:

Business operations and project management (including setting objectives, metrics, etc.)

People management and management coaching (some manager jobs require specialized skills, but some just require general management-associated skills)

Executive leadership (setting and enforcing organization-wide goals, making top-level decisions about budgeting, etc.)

Recruiting

Fundraising and marketing

Human resources

Office management

Events management

Assistant and administrative work

Corporate communications and public relations

Finance and accounting

Corporate law

Beth Jones (Open Philanthropy Director...

Published on June 3, 2021 10:51 AM GMT

Compiled by Markus Anderljung and Alexis Carlier

Junior researchers are often wondering what they should work on. To potentially help, we asked people at the Centre for the Governance of AI for research ideas related to longtermist AI governance. The compiled ideas are developed to varying degrees, including not just questions, but also some concrete research approaches, arguments, and thoughts on why the questions matter. They differ in scope: while some could be explored over a few months, others could be a productive use of a PhD or several years of research.

We do not make strong claims about these questions, e.g. that they are the absolute top priority at current margins. Each idea only represents the views of the person who wrote it. The ideas aren’t necessarily original. Where we think someone is already working on or has done thinking about the topic before, we've tried to point to them in the text and reach out to them before publishing this post.

If you are interested in pursuing any of these projects, please let us know by filling out this form. We may be able to help you find mentorship, advice, funding, or collaborators. You can also fill out the form if you’re intending to work on the project independently, so that we can help avoid duplication of effort. If you have feedback on the ideas, feel free to email [email protected].

You can find the ideas here. Our colleagues at the FHI AI Safety team put together a corresponding post with AI safety research project suggestions here.

Other Sources

Other sources of AI governance research projects include:

AI Governance: A Research Agenda, Allan Dafoe

Research questions that could have a big social impact, organised by discipline, 80,000 Hours

The section on AI in Legal Priorities Research: A Research Agenda, Legal Priorities Project

Some parts of A research agenda for the Global Priorities Institute, Global Priorities Institute

AI Impact’s list of Promising Research Projects

Phil Trammell and Anton Korinek's Economic Growth under Transformative AI

Luke Muehlhauser's 2014 How to study superintelligence strategy

You can also look for mentions of possible extensions in papers you find compelling

A list of the ideas in the document:

The Impact of US Nuclear Strategists in the early Cold War

Transformative AI and the Challenge of Inequality

Human-Machine Failing

Will there be a California Effect for AI?

Nuclear Safety in China

History of existential risk concerns around nanotechnology

Broader impact statements: Learning lessons from their introduction and evolution

Structuring access to AI capabilities: lessons from synthetic biology

Bubbles, Winters, and AI

Lessons from Self-Governance Mechanisms in AI

How does government intervention and corporate self-governance relate?

Summary and analysis of “common memes” about AI, in different communities

A Review of Strategic-Trade Theory

Mind reading technology

Compute Governance ideas

Compute Funds

Compute Providers as a Node of AI Governance

China’s access to cutting edge chips

Compute Provider Actor Analysis

Published on June 3, 2021 10:51 AM GMT

Compiled by Markus Anderljung and Alexis Carlier

Junior researchers are often wondering what they should work on. To potentially help, we asked people at the Centre for the Governance of AI for research ideas related to longtermist AI governance. The compiled ideas are developed to varying degrees, including not just questions, but also some concrete research approaches, arguments, and thoughts on why the questions matter. They differ in scope: while some could be explored over a few months, others could be a productive use of a PhD or several years of research.

We do not make strong claims about these questions, e.g. that they are the absolute top priority at current margins. Each idea only represents the views of the person who wrote it. The ideas aren’t necessarily original. Where we think someone is already working on or has done thinking about the topic before, we've tried to point to them in the text and reach out to them before publishing this post.

If you are interested in pursuing any of these projects, please let us know by filling out this form. We may be able to help you find mentorship, advice, funding, or collaborators. You can also fill out the form if you’re intending to work on the project independently, so that we can help avoid duplication of effort. If you have feedback on the ideas, feel free to email [email protected].

You can find the ideas here. Our colleagues at the FHI AI Safety team put together a corresponding post with AI safety research project suggestions here.

Other Sources

Other sources of AI governance research projects include:

AI Governance: A Research Agenda, Allan Dafoe

Research questions that could have a big social impact, organised by discipline, 80,000 Hours

The section on AI in Legal Priorities Research: A Research Agenda, Legal Priorities Project

Some parts of A research agenda for the Global Priorities Institute, Global Priorities Institute

AI Impact’s list of Promising Research Projects

Phil Trammell and Anton Korinek's Economic Growth under Transformative AI

Luke Muehlhauser's 2014 How to study superintelligence strategy

You can also look for mentions of possible extensions in papers you find compelling

A list of the ideas in the document:

The Impact of US Nuclear Strategists in the early Cold War

Transformative AI and the Challenge of Inequality

Human-Machine Failing

Will there be a California Effect for AI?

Nuclear Safety in China

History of existential risk concerns around nanotechnology

Broader impact statements: Learning lessons from their introduction and evolution

Structuring access to AI capabilities: lessons from synthetic biology

Bubbles, Winters, and AI

Lessons from Self-Governance Mechanisms in AI

How does government intervention and corporate self-governance relate?

Summary and analysis of “common memes” about AI, in different communities

A Review of Strategic-Trade Theory

Mind reading technology

Compute Governance ideas

Compute Funds

Compute Providers as a Node of AI Governance

China’s access to cutting edge chips

Compute Provider Actor Analysis

Published on June 2, 2021 8:40 AM GMT

Why disciplines, like design, can have added value for Effective Altruism

I am a designer and I am currently contributing to Effective Altruism in the Netherlands (though this is an article written from my personal perspective entirely). Using my humanity-centred design skill set, I have been developing a conceptual web tool that guides people in their effective donation journey; the Donation Compass. Due to my personal experience as an outsider at the EA Netherlands, I believe we need more disruptive outsiders with a greater diversity of skills. Because outsiders have a lot more to offer than first meets the eye.

I initially got involved with EA Netherlands because I was seeking a project client for my studies in Industrial Design. EA Netherlands eventually agreed to coach and support this project. Now you might think; What can someone with a design background contribute to a philosophical movement like Effective Altruism? Not only design but many other disciplines are often viewed with skepticism regarding their potential for direct contribution to EA.

In this article I will therefore outline why disciplinary diversity is important for EA. Meanwhile, I will provide examples based on my experiences and showcase the midpoint outputs of my own project.

Outsiders bring new perspectives

Firstly, the EA community needs outsiders with new perspectives because these people are likely to identify important issues that others would have missed. The EA community is a rather homogeneous group of people. EA’s are often white, highly-educated, male, and have expertise in the computer and other quantitative sciences. While homogeneity makes for harmony and mutual understanding, it also comes with the risk of bubble formation. How we view the world can never be completely objective; it is shaped by our background and culture. People with the same background therefore often have similar perspectives on the world and on the problems that exist in this world. This is problematic since today’s world is just too complex for an individual to grasp every aspect of it. There is thus a high likelihood that important problems will be (dis)missed if all people in the EA community have the same perspective.

Looking through my designer’s lense at the EA movement, I for example noticed shortcomings in the current methods of communication. Designers attribute great importance to the aesthetics and user-friendliness of everything that is created. When I, however, look at the ‘products’ that are created in the EA community, they often lack a certain aesthetic interaction. Most of the ‘products’ are scientific texts or data analyses. These ‘products’ are generally difficult to digest for a recipient and they spark little imagination. Through these observations, I, therefore, saw an opportunity in changing how we communicate about EA.

Outsiders bring new networks

A lack of outsiders also limits the amount of people that would initially get exposed to the ideas of EA and thus limits the spread of the EA mindset and ‘lifestyle’. I believe that for the EA community there is great truth in the quote; ‘Your network is your net worth’. This relates to the importance of a great and diverse network of experts to support and grow the cause of EA. Because when the same kinds of people are always working on important EA projects, the outcomes are likely tailored to, and mostly only reach these same kinds of people. Moreover, people often get involved with a cause because they identify with the supporters of that cause. If all the role models of EA are merely young academics; this will likely also hinder the general growth of the movement.

I also experienced what value my own network could bring to EA. I could access much-needed expertise that the Dutch EA community hadn’t had access to before. The Dutch EA community didn’t have a lot of professional web development expertise. Through my network of university friends, I could quic...

Published on June 2, 2021 8:40 AM GMT

Why disciplines, like design, can have added value for Effective Altruism

I am a designer and I am currently contributing to Effective Altruism in the Netherlands (though this is an article written from my personal perspective entirely). Using my humanity-centred design skill set, I have been developing a conceptual web tool that guides people in their effective donation journey; the Donation Compass. Due to my personal experience as an outsider at the EA Netherlands, I believe we need more disruptive outsiders with a greater diversity of skills. Because outsiders have a lot more to offer than first meets the eye.

I initially got involved with EA Netherlands because I was seeking a project client for my studies in Industrial Design. EA Netherlands eventually agreed to coach and support this project. Now you might think; What can someone with a design background contribute to a philosophical movement like Effective Altruism? Not only design but many other disciplines are often viewed with skepticism regarding their potential for direct contribution to EA.

In this article I will therefore outline why disciplinary diversity is important for EA. Meanwhile, I will provide examples based on my experiences and showcase the midpoint outputs of my own project.

Outsiders bring new perspectives

Firstly, the EA community needs outsiders with new perspectives because these people are likely to identify important issues that others would have missed. The EA community is a rather homogeneous group of people. EA’s are often white, highly-educated, male, and have expertise in the computer and other quantitative sciences. While homogeneity makes for harmony and mutual understanding, it also comes with the risk of bubble formation. How we view the world can never be completely objective; it is shaped by our background and culture. People with the same background therefore often have similar perspectives on the world and on the problems that exist in this world. This is problematic since today’s world is just too complex for an individual to grasp every aspect of it. There is thus a high likelihood that important problems will be (dis)missed if all people in the EA community have the same perspective.

Looking through my designer’s lense at the EA movement, I for example noticed shortcomings in the current methods of communication. Designers attribute great importance to the aesthetics and user-friendliness of everything that is created. When I, however, look at the ‘products’ that are created in the EA community, they often lack a certain aesthetic interaction. Most of the ‘products’ are scientific texts or data analyses. These ‘products’ are generally difficult to digest for a recipient and they spark little imagination. Through these observations, I, therefore, saw an opportunity in changing how we communicate about EA.

Outsiders bring new networks

A lack of outsiders also limits the amount of people that would initially get exposed to the ideas of EA and thus limits the spread of the EA mindset and ‘lifestyle’. I believe that for the EA community there is great truth in the quote; ‘Your network is your net worth’. This relates to the importance of a great and diverse network of experts to support and grow the cause of EA. Because when the same kinds of people are always working on important EA projects, the outcomes are likely tailored to, and mostly only reach these same kinds of people. Moreover, people often get involved with a cause because they identify with the supporters of that cause. If all the role models of EA are merely young academics; this will likely also hinder the general growth of the movement.

I also experienced what value my own network could bring to EA. I could access much-needed expertise that the Dutch EA community hadn’t had access to before. The Dutch EA community didn’t have a lot of professional web development expertise. Through my network of university friends, I could quic...

Published on June 1, 2021 8:19 AM GMT

Quoting from Rohin Shah's Alignment Newsletter (with light editing):

In the US, the National Security Commission on AI released their report to Congress. The full pdf is over 750 pages long, so I have not read it myself, and instead I’m adding in some commentary from others. In their newsletter, CSET says that highlights include:

- A warning that the U.S. military could be at a competitive disadvantage within the next decade if it does not accelerate its AI adoption. The report recommends laying the foundation for widespread AI integration by 2025, comprising a DOD-wide digital ecosystem, a technically literate workforce, and more efficient business practices aided by AI.

- A recommendation that the White House establish a new “Technology Competitiveness Council,” led by the vice president, to develop a comprehensive technology strategy and oversee its implementation.

- A recommendation that the U.S. military explore using autonomous weapons systems, provided their use is authorized by human operators.

- A proposal to establish a new Digital Service Academy and a civilian National Reserve to cultivate domestic AI talent.

- A call to provide $35 billion in federal investment and incentives for domestic semiconductor manufacturing.

- A recommendation to double non-defense AI R&D funding annually until it reaches $32 billion per year, and to triple the number of National AI Research Institutes.

- A call for reformed export controls, coordinated with allies, on key technologies such as high-end semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

- A recommendation that Congress pass a second National Defense Education Act and reform the U.S. immigration system to attract and retain AI students and workers from abroad.

While none of the report’s recommendations are legally binding, it has reportedly been well-received by key members of both parties.

Matthew van der Merwe also summarizes the recommendations in Import AI; this has a lot of overlap with the CSET summary so I won't copy it here.

Jeff Ding adds in ChinAI #134:

"[I]f you make it past the bluster in the beginning — or take it for what it is: obligatory marketing to cater to a DC audience hooked on a narrow vision of national security — there’s some smart moderate policy ideas in the report (e.g. chapter 7 on establishing justified confidence in AI systems)."

In email correspondence, Jon Rodriguez adds some commentary on the safety implications:

"1. The report acknowledges the potential danger of AGI, and specifically calls for value alignment research to take place (pg. 36). To my knowledge, this is one of the first times a leading world government has called for value alignment.

2. The report makes a clear statement that the US prohibits AI from authorizing the launch of nuclear weapons (pg. 98).

3. The report calls for dialogues with China and Russia to ensure that military decisions made by military AI at "machine speed" does not lead to out-of-control conflict escalation which humans would not want (pg. 97)."

And here's a very boiled down version of the executive summary (with the phrasings of the recommendations being the exact phrasings the report uses as headings):

The NSCAI recommends the government take the following 7 actions to "Defend America in the AI Era":

Defend against emerging AI-enabled threats to America’s free and open society

Prepare for future warfare

Manage risks associated with AI-enabled and autonomous weapons

Transform national intelligence

Scale up digital talent in government

Establish justified confidence in AI systems

Present a democratic model of AI use for national security

The NSCAI also recommends the government take the following 8 actions to "Win the Technology Competition":

Organize with a White House–led strategy for technology competition

Win the global talent competition

Accelerate AI innovation at home

Implement comprehensive intellectual property (IP) policies and regimes

Build a resilient domestic base...

Published on June 1, 2021 8:19 AM GMT

Quoting from Rohin Shah's Alignment Newsletter (with light editing):

In the US, the National Security Commission on AI released their report to Congress. The full pdf is over 750 pages long, so I have not read it myself, and instead I’m adding in some commentary from others. In their newsletter, CSET says that highlights include:

- A warning that the U.S. military could be at a competitive disadvantage within the next decade if it does not accelerate its AI adoption. The report recommends laying the foundation for widespread AI integration by 2025, comprising a DOD-wide digital ecosystem, a technically literate workforce, and more efficient business practices aided by AI.

- A recommendation that the White House establish a new “Technology Competitiveness Council,” led by the vice president, to develop a comprehensive technology strategy and oversee its implementation.

- A recommendation that the U.S. military explore using autonomous weapons systems, provided their use is authorized by human operators.

- A proposal to establish a new Digital Service Academy and a civilian National Reserve to cultivate domestic AI talent.

- A call to provide $35 billion in federal investment and incentives for domestic semiconductor manufacturing.

- A recommendation to double non-defense AI R&D funding annually until it reaches $32 billion per year, and to triple the number of National AI Research Institutes.

- A call for reformed export controls, coordinated with allies, on key technologies such as high-end semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

- A recommendation that Congress pass a second National Defense Education Act and reform the U.S. immigration system to attract and retain AI students and workers from abroad.

While none of the report’s recommendations are legally binding, it has reportedly been well-received by key members of both parties.

Matthew van der Merwe also summarizes the recommendations in Import AI; this has a lot of overlap with the CSET summary so I won't copy it here.

Jeff Ding adds in ChinAI #134:

"[I]f you make it past the bluster in the beginning — or take it for what it is: obligatory marketing to cater to a DC audience hooked on a narrow vision of national security — there’s some smart moderate policy ideas in the report (e.g. chapter 7 on establishing justified confidence in AI systems)."

In email correspondence, Jon Rodriguez adds some commentary on the safety implications:

"1. The report acknowledges the potential danger of AGI, and specifically calls for value alignment research to take place (pg. 36). To my knowledge, this is one of the first times a leading world government has called for value alignment.

2. The report makes a clear statement that the US prohibits AI from authorizing the launch of nuclear weapons (pg. 98).

3. The report calls for dialogues with China and Russia to ensure that military decisions made by military AI at "machine speed" does not lead to out-of-control conflict escalation which humans would not want (pg. 97)."

And here's a very boiled down version of the executive summary (with the phrasings of the recommendations being the exact phrasings the report uses as headings):

The NSCAI recommends the government take the following 7 actions to "Defend America in the AI Era":

Defend against emerging AI-enabled threats to America’s free and open society

Prepare for future warfare

Manage risks associated with AI-enabled and autonomous weapons

Transform national intelligence

Scale up digital talent in government

Establish justified confidence in AI systems

Present a democratic model of AI use for national security

The NSCAI also recommends the government take the following 8 actions to "Win the Technology Competition":

Organize with a White House–led strategy for technology competition

Win the global talent competition

Accelerate AI innovation at home

Implement comprehensive intellectual property (IP) policies and regimes

Build a resilient domestic base...

Published on June 3, 2021 1:01 AM GMT

Introduction

The Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund (EAIF) made the following grants as part of its Q1 2021 grant cycle:

Total grants: $1,221,178 (assuming all grantees accept the full grants)

Number of grants: 26

Number of applications (excluding desk rejections): 58

Payout date: April 2021

We expect that we could make valuable grants totalling $3–$6 million this year. The fund currently holds around $2.3 million. This means we could productively use $0.7–$3.7 in additional funding above our current reserves, or $0–$2.3 million (with a median guess of $500,000) above the amount of funding we expect to get by default by this November.

This is the first grant round led by the EAIF’s new committee, consisting of Buck Shlegeris, Max Daniel, Michelle Hutchinson, and Ben Kuhn as a guest fund manager, with Jonas Vollmer temporarily taking on chairperson duties, advising, and voting consultatively on grants. For more detail on the new committee selection, see EA Funds has appointed new fund managers.

Some of the grants are oriented primarily towards causes that are typically prioritized from a ‘non-longtermist’ perspective; others primarily toward causes that are typically prioritized for longtermist reasons. The EAIF makes grants towards longtermist projects if a) the grantseeker decided to apply to the EAIF (rather than the Long-Term Future Fund), b) the intervention is at a meta level or aims to build infrastructure in some sense, or c) the work spans multiple causes (whether the case for them is longtermist or not). We generally strive to maintain an overall balance between different worldviews according to the degree they seem plausible to the committee.

One report includes an embedded forecast; you can add your own prediction and related comments as you read. We’re interested to see whether we find the community’s prediction informative.

The reports from this round are unusually thorough, with the goal of providing more transparency about the thinking of the fund managers.

Would you like to get funded? You can apply for funding at any time.

If you have any question for fund managers not directly related to the grants described here, you’re welcome to ask it in our upcoming AMA.

Highlights

Our grants include:

Two grants totalling $139,200 to Emma Abele, James Aung, Bella Forristal, and Henry Sleight. They will work together to identify and implement new ways to support EA university groups – e.g., through high-quality introductory talks about EA and creating other content for workshops and events. University groups have historically been one of the most important sources of highly engaged EA community members, and we believe there is significant untapped potential for further growth. We are also excited about the team, based significantly on their track record – e.g., James and Bella previously led two of the globally most successful university groups.

$41,868 to Zak Ulhaq to develop and implement workshops aimed at helping highly talented teenagers apply EA concepts and quantitative reasoning to their lives. We are excited about this grant because we generally think that educating pre-university audiences about EA-related ideas and concepts could be highly valuable; e.g., we’re aware of (unpublished) survey data indicating that in a large sample of highly engaged community members who learned about EA in the last few years, about ¼ had first heard of EA when they were 18 or younger. At the same time, this space seems underexplored. Projects that are mindful of the risks involved in engaging younger audiences therefore have a high value of information – if successful, they could pave the way for many more projects of this type. We think that Zak is a good fit for efforts in this space because he has a strong technical background and experience with both teaching and EA community building.

$5,000 to the Czech Association for Effective Altruism to give away EA-related books to people wi...

Published on June 3, 2021 1:01 AM GMT

Introduction

The Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund (EAIF) made the following grants as part of its Q1 2021 grant cycle:

Total grants: $1,221,178 (assuming all grantees accept the full grants)

Number of grants: 26

Number of applications (excluding desk rejections): 58

Payout date: April 2021

We expect that we could make valuable grants totalling $3–$6 million this year. The fund currently holds around $2.3 million. This means we could productively use $0.7–$3.7 in additional funding above our current reserves, or $0–$2.3 million (with a median guess of $500,000) above the amount of funding we expect to get by default by this November.

This is the first grant round led by the EAIF’s new committee, consisting of Buck Shlegeris, Max Daniel, Michelle Hutchinson, and Ben Kuhn as a guest fund manager, with Jonas Vollmer temporarily taking on chairperson duties, advising, and voting consultatively on grants. For more detail on the new committee selection, see EA Funds has appointed new fund managers.

Some of the grants are oriented primarily towards causes that are typically prioritized from a ‘non-longtermist’ perspective; others primarily toward causes that are typically prioritized for longtermist reasons. The EAIF makes grants towards longtermist projects if a) the grantseeker decided to apply to the EAIF (rather than the Long-Term Future Fund), b) the intervention is at a meta level or aims to build infrastructure in some sense, or c) the work spans multiple causes (whether the case for them is longtermist or not). We generally strive to maintain an overall balance between different worldviews according to the degree they seem plausible to the committee.

One report includes an embedded forecast; you can add your own prediction and related comments as you read. We’re interested to see whether we find the community’s prediction informative.

The reports from this round are unusually thorough, with the goal of providing more transparency about the thinking of the fund managers.

Would you like to get funded? You can apply for funding at any time.

If you have any question for fund managers not directly related to the grants described here, you’re welcome to ask it in our upcoming AMA.

Highlights

Our grants include:

Two grants totalling $139,200 to Emma Abele, James Aung, Bella Forristal, and Henry Sleight. They will work together to identify and implement new ways to support EA university groups – e.g., through high-quality introductory talks about EA and creating other content for workshops and events. University groups have historically been one of the most important sources of highly engaged EA community members, and we believe there is significant untapped potential for further growth. We are also excited about the team, based significantly on their track record – e.g., James and Bella previously led two of the globally most successful university groups.

$41,868 to Zak Ulhaq to develop and implement workshops aimed at helping highly talented teenagers apply EA concepts and quantitative reasoning to their lives. We are excited about this grant because we generally think that educating pre-university audiences about EA-related ideas and concepts could be highly valuable; e.g., we’re aware of (unpublished) survey data indicating that in a large sample of highly engaged community members who learned about EA in the last few years, about ¼ had first heard of EA when they were 18 or younger. At the same time, this space seems underexplored. Projects that are mindful of the risks involved in engaging younger audiences therefore have a high value of information – if successful, they could pave the way for many more projects of this type. We think that Zak is a good fit for efforts in this space because he has a strong technical background and experience with both teaching and EA community building.

$5,000 to the Czech Association for Effective Altruism to give away EA-related books to people wi...