3 ms·

The top comment clarifies: * The purchase was for an events space, not HQ. * Why they want to run a particular kind of event. * Why this building is a good f

• lozenge 4y ago
  When donors want something ineffective, isn't it EA's job to convince them to want something effective instead? If they are only holding their own events there, it's a waste. If they're renting out the space, it's a distraction and a business masquerading as a charity.
  • jefftk 4y ago
    > When donors want something ineffective, isn't it EA's job to convince them to want something effective instead? To a point, yes. On the other hand, it's good for people to be trying a range of things: it's a hedge against groupthink, opens up new areas that might turn out to be important, what most needs doing might change over time and it's good to be prepared, people don't all have the same beliefs about what matters or the same theories of change, diminishing returns from overinvesting in an area, etc. This means that while it's good to push back on proposals to understand how they're plausibly high impact, "that's not what I'd put my time or donations towards but I don't think it's bad that you're working on it" is a common view for EAs to have of other EAs' work. > If they are only holding their own events there, it's a waste. I do think this is what they're doing. How is it a waste?
• gnramires 4y ago
  > It was funded by a grant from a donor who specifically wanted to support this project. It seems (from what I gather) the venue was a decision from CEA, not the donor (he cites his reasoning behind the choice). It's important to highlight this was not money directed toward donations, but instead money directly for CEA (supposedly they could manage their finances and buy property for meetings). Still, that's really expensive for a venue -- in the last case, if they had so much money, why not funnel it back to great causes that could really use the money? (sorry, I have to go there: $18M/$5000 == 3600 lives saved from preventable diseases -- is the property that important?) > (b) thinks that progress on improving the world is mostly limited by figuring out what to do and not by the amount of funding for proven things. In that case, I think a better investment would be in proper, well thought out, academic infrastructure that would help people research more effective ways of giving. It seems way too easy to "fool ourselves" thinking: we bought a lavish castle, but it's going to make us think better! -- the high standards applied to giving should definitely by applied to our internal decisions as well, and we need to be specially vigilant when it stands to benefit ourselves -- in what appears as a lavish expensive. My main concern would be the lack of transparency -- why wasn't this decision made publicly and transparently, why didn't they consult for example the effectivealtruism.org forums, or donors?
  • jefftk 4y ago
    > It seems (from what I gather) the venue was a decision from CEA, not the donor (he cites his reasoning behind the choice). This is minor, but my read from the post is that the project was a decision from an EA (Owen) who lined up funding (the donor) and a host organization (CEA, since renamed to EAV). > that's really expensive for a venue Is it? This is a building with room to host 30-50 people, meeting space, and (I think) a commercial kitchen. Very roughly, it costs 10 times as much as my house for 10 times the space. > if they had so much money, why not funnel it back to great causes that could really use the money? As I wrote above, I think it's probably because they think that the most important work is not bottlenecked on funding but on figuring out what to do. I think bednet distribution is great (and just made my annual donation via GiveWell) but there isn't a clear consensus on how best to improve the world. I do think the donor would bite your bullet and say that they thought that the benefit to humans, over time, of the workshops this space will facilitate is larger than the benefit to humans today of using that money to prevent additional deaths from disease. > My main concern would be the lack of transparency -- why wasn't this decision made publicly and transparently, why didn't they consult for example the effectivealtruism.org forums, or donors? I would love it if they had publicly written up their plans at the stage of "we're thinking about buying a building to host residential workshops, here's about what we think it would cost, here's why we think it's worth doing", and I would strongly encourage others to do that. I also think that if you are soliciting donations from the public at large you should be clear about what you intend to spend the money on and why you think it's plausibly one of the most valuable things to do with that money. At the same time, I think a norm where effective altruists should prioritize transparency so highly that a group of them can't spend their own money without making the case publicly would go too far. For example, I know some people who hosted a workshop (elsewhere!) on figuring out what sort of safety studies would be valuable for evaluating UVC light as a disease transmission reducer. I don't believe they wrote anything up publicly justifying the cost of the workshop, instead the cost was between them and their funder, and that's ok! Public communication is a lot of work, and it trades off with other things you could be doing instead.