I'm curious whether you ended up trying these out?

Great post! I'd be very excited to see somewhere like the Infrastructure Fund funding any of these.

Another point: Generally converting money to time and productivity - affording healthy ready meals, a fast and functional laptop and phone, not needing to stress about meeting rent, being able to get Ubers rather than walking, etc. I think it's often awkward to ask for money to meet things like this for yourself, but I want anyone doing good community building with to not need to worry about things like this! Or if anyone is doing a part time job to support themselves while doing community building, I'd LOVE for them to be paid for the community building instead, and be able to focus on that more

I think people in EA are often averse to things like this, because that money could be donated instead. But I think this often leads to bad norms around this stuff - if you're doing high impact work, your time is valuable, and saving time means you can do more good work!

I had absolutely no idea you could subscribe to a tag! Thanks (as a result, I have no real views on this feature)

I feel mildly negative about this idea, though find it hard to articulate why

I would find this extremely motivating (though also obsessively check it in a way that is somewhat unhealthy)

Interesting idea! I think this works much better when supply is constrained, eg land, and not when supply is elastic (eg GPUs). I'm curious whether anyone has actually tried this

I think AI research on large models is quite different to the kind of research meant by this post, because it requires large amounts of compute, which is physical (though I guess not exactly a product)

Similarly biotech research or high energy physics research is really expensive, and mostly because of physical world stuff

Lastly, I may be alone here, but I am concerned with EA community becoming a little too quickly bound to norms and rules. I would be afraid we could quickly become a dogmatic and siloed group. I would argue the approach in the video above is unique/diverse in the community, and that there is strong value in that 

I agree with the principle of being pro-diversity and anti-dogma in general, but I disagree when it comes to public communications. If someone communicates badly about EA, that harms the movement, can negatively change perceptions, and makes it harder for everyone else doing communication. Eg, 80K over-emphasising earning to give early on. 

I think that divisive and argumentative approaches like this one, as Harrison says, can put a lot of people off and give them a more negative image of EA, and I think this can be harmful to the movement. This doesn't mean that public communication needs to be homogenous, but I do think it's valuable to push back on public communication that we think may be harmful. 

Thanks a lot for the thorough post! I found it really helpful how you put rough numbers on everything, and made things concrete, and I feel like I have clearer intuitions for these questions now.

My understanding is that these considerations only apply to longtermists, and that for people who prioritise global health and well-being or animal welfare this is all much less clear, would you agree with that? My read is that those cause areas have much more high quality work by non EAs and high quality, shovel ready interventions.

I think that nuance can often get lost in discussions like this, and I imagine a good chunk of 80K readers are not longtermists, so if this only applies to longtermists I think that would be good to make clear in a prominent place.

And do you have any idea how the numbers for total funding break down into different cause areas? That seems important for reasoning about this.

The best way for this is to create an issue on github

Fyi this link is broken