7 ms·

Scroll to the end. This is a $30M grant to the guy's roommate and future brother-in-law. Unbelievable.

Analemma_ 10y ago
idlewords, this comment has tremendous negative utility for humanity. By pointing out obvious nepotism and corruption in the AI risk charity field, you make people less likely to donate in the future, thus increasing the likelihood of a takeover from the robots. You must delete this comment; the fate of the world depends on it! /s
- idlewords 10y ago
  I'll believe it when I hear it from a future superintelligence that has pre-committed to simulating 3^^^^^3 copies of me.
  - btown 10y ago
    By the time a simulation of you hears that it will already be too late.
nbouscal 10y ago
To the company that his roommate works for as a researcher. The way you're phrasing it is pretty misleading.
- idlewords 10y ago
  Two of his roommates.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
reachtarunhere 10y ago
I don't see this as a problem. If I had tons of money and knew someone (by any connection) who was doing amazing work I would definitely chip in.
- icebraining 10y ago
  It's not his money, though. Also, when you invest in your friend's business, you don't get to deduct that in your taxes.
  - jaibot 10y ago
    It's not Holden's money - he works for OPP, he doesn't fund it. The money comes from Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, and it's already in a trust.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Yes, that's what I wrote.
  - engx 10y ago
    It's not a business, it's a non profit founded by Elon Musk, Sam Altman and others, with $1 billion in committments to funding. How is this controversial? Just because some people know each other?
  - metricodus 10y ago
    Not american, but it seems like you have some information that you should contribute to your country's tax collection agency. I'm sure they would be grateful.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mistercow 10y ago
It is pretty unbelievable, since it's not true. The actual quote: >OpenAI researchers Dario Amodei and Paul Christiano are both technical advisors to Open Philanthropy and live in the same house as Holden. In addition, Holden is engaged to Dario’s sister Daniela. His roommates/sister's fiancé work there. That's all.
- idlewords 10y ago
  Holden is engaged to the sister of the guy he is funding. Hence, "future brother-in-law".
  - jaibot 10y ago
    "Running an organization" is not the same thing as "owning an organization". Maybe at a company the CEO might have shares, but there's no equivalent at a non-profit. It's just a job that pays below market rates. If money was the goal, there's a plethora of readily-available much-higher-value opportunities that won't get sneering Internet comments.
  - mistercow 10y ago
    That's not a response to my comment.
    - idlewords 10y ago
      You said "sister's fiancé", which is backwards.
      - mistercow 10y ago
        Fair enough, but it doesn't make much difference.
frik 10y ago
Related snip: Relationship disclosures OpenAI researchers Dario Amodei and Paul Christiano are both technical advisors to Open Philanthropy and live in the same house as Holden. In addition, Holden is engaged to Dario’s sister Daniela.
jaibot 10y ago
I want to make sure I fully understand the accusation here. You're saying that the Open Philanthropy Fund - which is funded by an $8.3 billion grant from Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, also close associates - is funneling $30M money to an organization that pays below market rates (https://www.quora.com/What-is-compensation-like-at-the-non-profit-OpenAI https://www.quora.com/What-is-compensation-like-at-the-non-p...), run by people who have dedicated their professional careers and millions of dollars to philanthropic causes despite being surrounded by way more lucrative opportunities for anyone with their skillsets. If this were the scheme, there are countless better ways to do it. They could just give them the money without any pretense. Dustin and Cari didn't have to tie up this money in OPP. They could have skipped the years of working with Holden and others for years to identify the best giving opportunities, avoided any blowback, and just used their money the way every other billionaire does. Or, instead of just giving it away, they could have made him an absurdly compensated CEO of a new startup. And none of that would have attracted any attention, no sneering condemnation, just business as usual. But that's not what they did. They've spent years painstakingly identifying the best causes they could find - anti-malarial nets, poverty relief via direct cash transfers, biosecurity, intestinal work treatment, Schistosomiasis, prison reform, and yes, AI safety. They've oriented their entire lives around this project, so of course many of the people they're close to are working on similar projects. So it really, really shouldn't be a shocking twist that one of the people they're close to might be in a position to use a small fraction of their available funds for a lot of potential good. There are fewer than 100 people working full-time on AI safety today. If you've concluded that it's an important cause area, there really aren't many options. And even then, they didn't have to disclose their personal connection. They really could have just left well enough alone. But because they're dedicated to transparency even in the face of stupidity, they made their personal connection prominent and obvious. So now anyone on the Internet can cruise on by and - ignoring the millions donated to third-world poverty and health causes, ignoring the multitude of ways the money could have been quietly and selfishly used, ignoring the fact that non-profits invariably pay below-market rates, ignoring the copious public writing and research that's gone into these decisions - can simply gawk and say "unbelievable". When people say "No good deed goes unpunished", this is what they're talking about.
- _benedict 10y ago
tabeth 10y ago
I don't know what's more frustrating, the blatant nepotism, or the apologists for this behavior. Good grief.
dang 10y ago
I scrolled to the end and can see why someone would question that. But framing it as a personal grant is misleading. If we're going to keep telling users that on HN we want them to make substantive points thoughtfully and apply the principle of charity, it's only fair to say so here as well. We like pith, but fairness more. (In case anyone is curious, I don't know anything about the story; I just saw it on HN.)
- metricodus 10y ago
  Do you/YC have any personal or financial connection to the "Open Philanthropy Project"? Just curious.
  - dang 10y ago
    I don't, and only hear of these things when they show up on HN. No idea about YC but I doubt it.
    - metricodus 10y ago
      Thanks.
    - schoen 10y ago
      On the other side, OpenAI was previously also funded by YC: http://blog.ycombinator.com/openai/ http://blog.ycombinator.com/openai/
  - deontologizt 10y ago
    I don't know if this counts, but YC funds the Centre for Effective Altruism and 80,000 Hours. CEA, 80k, and OPP are all part of the "effective altruism" ecosystem, and it is not hard to find personal connections between them. (For example, CEA recently launched "EA Funds", which are managed by employees of OPP.) The connection is not direct. There may be more direct connections between YC and OPP, but I am not aware of any.
- idlewords 10y ago
  I don't think the principle of charity applies when someone is making foundation grants to benefit their close relatives and roommates. The principle of shenanigans kicks in.
metricodus 10y ago
Copied for convenience: "OpenAI researchers Dario Amodei and Paul Christiano are both technical advisors to Open Philanthropy and live in the same house as Holden. In addition, Holden is engaged to Dario’s sister Daniela."
arikr 10y ago
Here's the other perspective – if I'm working at Open Philanthropy, I'd be wanting to get to know people who run organizations I'm likely to be really interested in. So, it's natural that I'd be expecting there's a high chance I'd want to give to the organization they work at later on. Just because someone has a personal connection doesn't mean it's a bad use of money – it indicates it's worth asking the question, but just because there's personal connection doesn't make it "unbelievable." Also - not just his roommate and future brother-in-law. Also a project funded by Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman, etc. Seems pretty damn reasonable to think they would've evaluated OpenAI for a grant regardless of the personal relationships. Hater News at its best.

idlewords, this comment has tremendous negative utility for humanity. By pointing out obvious nepotism and corruption in the AI risk charity field, you make people less likely to donate in the future, thus increasing the likelihood of a takeover from the robots. You must delete this comment; the fate of the world depends on it! /s

idlewords 10y ago
I'll believe it when I hear it from a future superintelligence that has pre-committed to simulating 3^^^^^3 copies of me.
- btown 10y ago
  By the time a simulation of you hears that it will already be too late.

nbouscal 10y ago

To the company that his roommate works for as a researcher. The way you're phrasing it is pretty misleading.

idlewords 10y ago
Two of his roommates.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

reachtarunhere 10y ago

I don't see this as a problem. If I had tons of money and knew someone (by any connection) who was doing amazing work I would definitely chip in.

icebraining 10y ago
It's not his money, though. Also, when you invest in your friend's business, you don't get to deduct that in your taxes.
- jaibot 10y ago
  It's not Holden's money - he works for OPP, he doesn't fund it. The money comes from Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, and it's already in a trust.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Yes, that's what I wrote.
- engx 10y ago
  It's not a business, it's a non profit founded by Elon Musk, Sam Altman and others, with $1 billion in committments to funding. How is this controversial? Just because some people know each other?
- metricodus 10y ago
  Not american, but it seems like you have some information that you should contribute to your country's tax collection agency. I'm sure they would be grateful.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mistercow 10y ago

It is pretty unbelievable, since it's not true. The actual quote: >OpenAI researchers Dario Amodei and Paul Christiano are both technical advisors to Open Philanthropy and live in the same house as Holden. In addition, Holden is engaged to Dario’s sister Daniela. His roommates/sister's fiancé work there. That's all.

idlewords 10y ago
Holden is engaged to the sister of the guy he is funding. Hence, "future brother-in-law".
- jaibot 10y ago
  "Running an organization" is not the same thing as "owning an organization". Maybe at a company the CEO might have shares, but there's no equivalent at a non-profit. It's just a job that pays below market rates. If money was the goal, there's a plethora of readily-available much-higher-value opportunities that won't get sneering Internet comments.
- mistercow 10y ago
  That's not a response to my comment.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    You said "sister's fiancé", which is backwards.
    - mistercow 10y ago
      Fair enough, but it doesn't make much difference.

frik 10y ago

Related snip: Relationship disclosures OpenAI researchers Dario Amodei and Paul Christiano are both technical advisors to Open Philanthropy and live in the same house as Holden. In addition, Holden is engaged to Dario’s sister Daniela.

jaibot 10y ago

I want to make sure I fully understand the accusation here. You're saying that the Open Philanthropy Fund - which is funded by an $8.3 billion grant from Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, also close associates - is funneling $30M money to an organization that pays below market rates (https://www.quora.com/What-is-compensation-like-at-the-non-profit-OpenAI https://www.quora.com/What-is-compensation-like-at-the-non-p...), run by people who have dedicated their professional careers and millions of dollars to philanthropic causes despite being surrounded by way more lucrative opportunities for anyone with their skillsets. If this were the scheme, there are countless better ways to do it. They could just give them the money without any pretense. Dustin and Cari didn't have to tie up this money in OPP. They could have skipped the years of working with Holden and others for years to identify the best giving opportunities, avoided any blowback, and just used their money the way every other billionaire does. Or, instead of just giving it away, they could have made him an absurdly compensated CEO of a new startup. And none of that would have attracted any attention, no sneering condemnation, just business as usual. But that's not what they did. They've spent years painstakingly identifying the best causes they could find - anti-malarial nets, poverty relief via direct cash transfers, biosecurity, intestinal work treatment, Schistosomiasis, prison reform, and yes, AI safety. They've oriented their entire lives around this project, so of course many of the people they're close to are working on similar projects. So it really, really shouldn't be a shocking twist that one of the people they're close to might be in a position to use a small fraction of their available funds for a lot of potential good. There are fewer than 100 people working full-time on AI safety today. If you've concluded that it's an important cause area, there really aren't many options. And even then, they didn't have to disclose their personal connection. They really could have just left well enough alone. But because they're dedicated to transparency even in the face of stupidity, they made their personal connection prominent and obvious. So now anyone on the Internet can cruise on by and - ignoring the millions donated to third-world poverty and health causes, ignoring the multitude of ways the money could have been quietly and selfishly used, ignoring the fact that non-profits invariably pay below-market rates, ignoring the copious public writing and research that's gone into these decisions - can simply gawk and say "unbelievable". When people say "No good deed goes unpunished", this is what they're talking about.

_benedict 10y ago

tabeth 10y ago

I don't know what's more frustrating, the blatant nepotism, or the apologists for this behavior. Good grief.

dang 10y ago

I scrolled to the end and can see why someone would question that. But framing it as a personal grant is misleading. If we're going to keep telling users that on HN we want them to make substantive points thoughtfully and apply the principle of charity, it's only fair to say so here as well. We like pith, but fairness more. (In case anyone is curious, I don't know anything about the story; I just saw it on HN.)

metricodus 10y ago
Do you/YC have any personal or financial connection to the "Open Philanthropy Project"? Just curious.
- dang 10y ago
  I don't, and only hear of these things when they show up on HN. No idea about YC but I doubt it.
  - metricodus 10y ago
    Thanks.
  - schoen 10y ago
    On the other side, OpenAI was previously also funded by YC: http://blog.ycombinator.com/openai/ http://blog.ycombinator.com/openai/
- deontologizt 10y ago
  I don't know if this counts, but YC funds the Centre for Effective Altruism and 80,000 Hours. CEA, 80k, and OPP are all part of the "effective altruism" ecosystem, and it is not hard to find personal connections between them. (For example, CEA recently launched "EA Funds", which are managed by employees of OPP.) The connection is not direct. There may be more direct connections between YC and OPP, but I am not aware of any.
idlewords 10y ago
I don't think the principle of charity applies when someone is making foundation grants to benefit their close relatives and roommates. The principle of shenanigans kicks in.

metricodus 10y ago

Copied for convenience: "OpenAI researchers Dario Amodei and Paul Christiano are both technical advisors to Open Philanthropy and live in the same house as Holden. In addition, Holden is engaged to Dario’s sister Daniela."

arikr 10y ago

Here's the other perspective – if I'm working at Open Philanthropy, I'd be wanting to get to know people who run organizations I'm likely to be really interested in. So, it's natural that I'd be expecting there's a high chance I'd want to give to the organization they work at later on. Just because someone has a personal connection doesn't mean it's a bad use of money – it indicates it's worth asking the question, but just because there's personal connection doesn't make it "unbelievable." Also - not just his roommate and future brother-in-law. Also a project funded by Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman, etc. Seems pretty damn reasonable to think they would've evaluated OpenAI for a grant regardless of the personal relationships. Hater News at its best.