Funding Good Research

while the other groups of researchers in this area (mathematicians, computer scientists, economists, etc) talk to one another (at least a little), the philosophers are mostly isolated.

A more relevant question is whether mathematicians, CS folks and economists would talk to one another about foundational issues in decision theory. It appears that this subtopic has mostly been classified under academic philosophy, which explains why other DT researchers would pay little attention to Newcomb's problem. (It's true that other DT researchers have considered the related problem of making credible precommitments, and this literature should probably be cited in any introduction to UDT/TDT.) A good review of the one journal paper would suffice to raise interest among folks dealing with the more applied kind of DT.

It's complicated, but here's one thought...

Notice that one of my example papers was a paper of objections to CEV. Right now we're at the stage of making the arguments and concepts in play formalized enough that they can be defended or attacked rigorously. If somebody formalizes and clarifies an argument well enough to properly attack, they've done at least half our work for us.

informs you she no longer believes the TDT ideas are workable?

If anything, that would be the most bang for the buck. There is a non-zero chance that the TDT is a blind avenue, and if so, discovering it early would save the SI's mission of preventing x-risk from AGI lots of time and money. Litany of Tarsky and such.

The TDT paper is particularly difficult to write, and will require many months of work even from someone as skilled as Rachael. It's hard to figure out which points to emphasize and how to present the ideas, and then it's doubly hard to figure out how to squeeze 200 pages worth of material into the 20-30 pages that is suitable for journal publication.

If the aim is to get peer reviewed journal articles for the sake of it then $20 000 is a lot of money. If the aim is to get peer reviewed journal articles to raise the profile of FAI issues or to raise the reputation of SI (with philosophers) then I suggest Rachael Briggs is worth the money - she's very well respected in academic philosophy circles and a single paper from her will garner far more attention than (I suspect, literally) dozens of papers from other people.

The paper I wrote for the DoD this last year cost them $2,000 a page (only about a quarter went to me), and so that seems in line with general academic funding.

If her consulting rates are like mine, this will buy about 12 days of her time.

Here is a comparison with a real funding agency, American Educational Research Association:

Awards Awards for Research Grants are up to $20,000 for 1-year projects, or up to $35,000 for 2-year projects. In accordance with AERA's agreement with the funding agencies, institutions may not charge indirect costs or overhead on these awards. Approximately 15 Research Grants will be awarded per year.

Reporting requirements All Research Grantees will be required to submit a brief (3-6 pages) progress report mid-way through the grant period. A final report will be submitted at the end of the grant period. The final report should be an article based on the proposed research and of the quality and in the format for submission to a journal for publication.

Note that they do not even require a publication, only a submission.

Seconding the recommendation of Alicorn for any job that involves writing.

Unless the person in question has a strong publication track record in these kinds of journals (something regular grant agencies also look for) it is very difficult to guarantee that the paper will in fact pass peer review in these journals.

The use of a high status name and academic affiliations sufficient to get accepted by a target journal is quite possibly the most valuable element of the service being purchased.

As well, when it will be published could be a big deal. A paper spending years in the review process is not all that unlikely- and so if the writer is only paid when it's actually accepted for submission, that could mean the money spends a long time in limbo.

You might do better with one very good researcher that you choose rather getting contributions from whoever is willing to work on spec.