4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.
- gnramires 4y ago
  To be clear, I consider myself an effective altruist. > Very roughly, it costs 10 times as much as my house for 10 times the space I highly appreciate the transparency! To be fair, I think your house is expensive (I suppose you live in a very expensive place! around here, you could buy 10 large apartments for that kind of money). Is everywhere in Oxford that expensive? I do live in a developing country, and have a relatively comfortable lifestyle for my country. Still, I try to be frugal and avoid spending more than I need, even in everyday life. An EA that I want to support is an EA that is radically compassionate, open minded, pragmatic, altruistic and bravely focused on a better world; not one that is self-serving with sprinkles of charitable giving. I also feel that self-vigilance, self-skepticism (and embracing criticism and improvement with an open heart and mind) is an important component of EA, which is what I'm trying to do here. > 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. I agree to an extent (although I plan to make my own giving as transparent as I reasonably can in the future), but that is specifically an EA charity, not private individuals -- as an EA org, I think they show commitment to effective spending and I think it's very reasonable they should embrace transparency. From wiki: "Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA) is an Oxford-based charity that builds and supports the effective altruism community". This makes me less confident than I would like in supporting CEA over effective charities like GiveWell or other EA charities. Please see this post (from me): Be simple and transparent, a heuristic https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/yww9g6/be_simple_and_transparent_a_heuristic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/yww9g6/be_s...
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > it's probably because they think that the most important work is not bottlenecked on funding but on figuring out what to do. Note that this has very much changed in the past few weeks, for reasons I'm not going to get into in this comment. We'll see how EA funding does in this upcoming giving season, but for now the general assumption is that EA is broadly funding-constrained.
  - jefftk 4y ago

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.

gnramires 4y ago
To be clear, I consider myself an effective altruist. > Very roughly, it costs 10 times as much as my house for 10 times the space I highly appreciate the transparency! To be fair, I think your house is expensive (I suppose you live in a very expensive place! around here, you could buy 10 large apartments for that kind of money). Is everywhere in Oxford that expensive? I do live in a developing country, and have a relatively comfortable lifestyle for my country. Still, I try to be frugal and avoid spending more than I need, even in everyday life. An EA that I want to support is an EA that is radically compassionate, open minded, pragmatic, altruistic and bravely focused on a better world; not one that is self-serving with sprinkles of charitable giving. I also feel that self-vigilance, self-skepticism (and embracing criticism and improvement with an open heart and mind) is an important component of EA, which is what I'm trying to do here. > 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. I agree to an extent (although I plan to make my own giving as transparent as I reasonably can in the future), but that is specifically an EA charity, not private individuals -- as an EA org, I think they show commitment to effective spending and I think it's very reasonable they should embrace transparency. From wiki: "Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA) is an Oxford-based charity that builds and supports the effective altruism community". This makes me less confident than I would like in supporting CEA over effective charities like GiveWell or other EA charities. Please see this post (from me): Be simple and transparent, a heuristic https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/yww9g6/be_simple_and_transparent_a_heuristic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/yww9g6/be_s...
zozbot234 4y ago
> it's probably because they think that the most important work is not bottlenecked on funding but on figuring out what to do. Note that this has very much changed in the past few weeks, for reasons I'm not going to get into in this comment. We'll see how EA funding does in this upcoming giving season, but for now the general assumption is that EA is broadly funding-constrained.
- jefftk 4y ago