One of the biggest virtues of a large "fund for the future," IMHO, is that it would make it easier to start up new projects in the field separate from existing organizations if they could meet the (transparently announced) standards of the fund, with the process as transparent and productive of information as practicable, GiveWell style.
And it could serve those who think the existing organizations in the field are deficient in some remediable way (rather than having some general objection to all work in the area).
That does sound good. Is there any ongoing progress on figuring out what those transparently announced standards could be, and how one might set up such a DAF? Are there such standards in place for the one in the UK?
The one in the UK is mainly functioning as a short term DAF along the lines of "direct the money as you intend, with trust of GWWC as a backstop" which is fine if you don't want to delay disbursement until after you die.
Is there any ongoing progress on figuring out what those transparently announced standards could be, and how one might set up such a DAF?
Not yet, so far mainly discussions, e.g. with Paul, Rob Wiblin, Nick Beckstead, et al. I expect more from CEA on this (not wholly independently of my own actions).
In the past, people like Eliezer Yudkowsky (see 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) have argued that MIRI has a medium probability of success. What is this probability estimate based on and how is success defined?
I've read standard MIRI literature (like "Evidence and Import" and "Five Theses"), but I may have missed something.
-
(Meta: I don't think this deserves a discussion thread, but I posted this on the open thread and no-one responded, and I think it's important enough to merit a response.)