We’re still (extremely) funding constrained (but don’t let fear of getting funding stop you trying).

By Luke Freeman 🔸 @ 2022-09-16T04:43 (+183)

Lots has been written about this so I wrote a poem instead along with my thoughts and related links at the bottom. I lead the team at Giving What We Can, views are my own.

Poem

Years ago we were struck by big problems: they were so extremely funding constrained.

One-by-one we saw a big impact: by making them less extremely funding constrained.

We didn't wait for permission, we gave from our own pockets first. It became our mission to put others first.

Our thrifty community dug into the data. We made money go further, we made things go better.

Each dollar paid dividends, each DALY gained a good end. Progress felt slow, but was needed, we know.

Constraints were consistent, opportunity cost felt: "Should I pledger further? Should I become a researcher?"

A driven community with compassion so big: we found more neglected problems, solvable, and big.

We said "more research needed", traded money for time: found researchers, founders and then funders aligned.

Some problems found funders more quickly than founders, yet others found moneypits so desperate to fill.

Give trillions in cash or keep coal in the ground? What about the backlash if our decisions aren't sound?

As we made progress we hit the mainstream. Among the first questions: "Why's my cause unseen?"

We're resource constrained, I wish it weren't such: "Yes, we want to help everyone, but we only have so much!"

Our work's still so small in the scheme of the world. Still, let's be more ambitious: let's build a dreamworld.

We need many folks to be stoaked by our mission. We need many funders, founders, and passion.

Experimentation is something we now know we can try: don't let fear of funding be why you don't apply.

But for the foreseeable future your dollars still count: for every life that you help we mustn't discount.

Our mission 'aint over, we're at the start of our road. We need your help: let's make some inroads.

So give what you can and get others involved. Let’s keep working together to get these problems solved.

Postscript

It can be quite difficult to ‘feel’ the fact that all of these things are true at the same time:

1. We have increased available funding by an order of magnitude over the past decade and increased the rate at which that funding is being deployed
2. We don't want lack of funds to be the reason that people don't do important and ambitious things; and yet
3. Yet in most cases we are still extremely funding constrained

I find it painful (and counter-productive) to see these messages floating around:

• EA has “too much money”
• EA has “more money than it knows what to do with”
• There is “such a glut of money in EA right now”
• EA has a “funding overhang”
• Donations aren’t needed, or they don’t count
• Pursuing a high-impact career is mutually exclusive with donating (although there are tradeoffs)
• If you don’t get funded it means your project is not worthwhile (in some cases it could be just below a current bar, among other reasons)
• If you miss out on a job when “there’s plenty of money” it means there’s nothing for you (some organisations are still very funding constrained and may have happily hired you if they were less funding constrained)

Whereas I think the better (more truthful and constructive narratives) are:

• We have a more decent shot at having a significant impact
  • We have more resources which helps us:
    • Double down on things we have good evidence for
    • Justifiably spending more on research and experimentation
    • Become more diverse (e.g. doesn’t require someone to have enough personal resources to take big risks, we can fund people to attend a conference/retreat they couldn’t otherwise afford etc) and therefore find more excellent people to participate in this grand project.
• The situation is nuanced:
  • The funding situation varies significantly by cause (e.g. a top AI safety lab can likely pay above market rates for salaries for a decent junior researcher while many jobs in global health will be lower paying and still very competitive)
  • Different funders have different priorities and approaches to funding (e.g. it can be much harder to get funding for a more speculative global health project than an equally speculative longtermist project)
  • A lot of the money is concentrated in a small number of donors/evaluators/grantmakers (another reason I think that more diversification here is good)
  • The wrong messages about money could be incredibly damaging
    • Just like we need to be around other topics like careers (e.g. many articles have been written about people hearing that we’re talent constrained and then how it feels to not get “an EA job”).
• We still need much more funding:
  • As I said in my comment on this post, it pains me deeply that AMF (and many other super robust high-impact charities) still have a funding gap
  • We've already identified far more opportunities than we can possibly fund with our current resources (e.g. megaprojects are all currently out of reach, GiveWell can't fully fund its top charities, GiveDirectly is still an incredible opportunity etc).
  • We’re uncertain about the pipeline of funding coming in the future
    • We don’t want to spend it all too quickly
    • We still want to be very careful with how we spend the money we do have
• Finally:
  • Giving is still one of the most accessible ways that almost anyway can immediately start having a meaningful impact on important causes
  • Fundraisers and other “big tent” activities help increase our reach and have a nice flow on effect to things like career changes

So please don’t let fear of getting funded for something be your reason for not doing it: be ambitious. But also bear in mind that a lot of good projects aren't getting funded and people aren’t getting hired that would otherwise be if we weren’t still so (extremely) funding constrained. And if you can help provide more funding then please do: It can still be incredibly impactful!

These posts posts make most of these arguments better than I do:

• We need more nuance regarding funding gaps
• Let's stop saying 'funding overhang'
• EA and the current funding situation 
• The value of small donations from a longtermist perspective
• Despite billions of extra funding, small donors can still have a significant impact
• EA needs money more than ever 
• We need more nuance regarding funding gaps
• Why I view effective giving as complementary to direct work
• An update on GiveWell’s funding projections
• We are still in triage
• Should GiveWell still recommend GiveDirectly?
• Making Effective Altruism Enormous