A Qualitative Case for LTFF: Filling Critical Ecosystem Gaps

post by Linch · 2024-12-03T21:57:23.597Z · LW · GW · 2 comments

Contents

2 comments

2 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by TsviBT · 2024-12-04T19:06:57.252Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Less concerned about PR risks than most funders

Just so it's said somewhere, LTFF is probably still too concerned with PR. (I don't necessarily mean that people working at LTFF are doing something wrong / making a mistake. I don't have enough information to make a guess like that. E.g., they may be constrained by other people, etc. Also, I don't claim there's another major grant maker that's less constrained like this.) What I mean is, there are probably projects that are feasibly-knowably good but that LTFF can't/won't fund because of PR. So for funders with especially high tolerance for PR and/or ability / interest in investigating PR risks that seem bad from far away, I would recommend against LTFF, in favor of making more specific use of that special status, unless you truly don't have the bandwidth to do so, even by delegating.

Replies from: habryka4
comment by habryka (habryka4) · 2024-12-04T19:46:43.772Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Also, I don't claim there's another major grant maker that's less constrained like this.)

I think the SFF appears less constrained like this