Thanks for this helpful framework. 

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, and of course you've got it here already at the start of your "funding opportunity" approach, but whether you are are single cause focused or not I think cost effectiveness (impact is a bit vague for me) has to be front and center and what USAID bridging decisions ride on. I would estimate ?80 percent plus of USAID funding which has been cut is not very cost effective. (Cost effective programs like HIV meds and malaria meds have not yet been completely cut although the future is unclear)

I would even put much of the the Open Phil funded DIV grants in this bracket. We applied for a DIV grant last year and (I'm not just bitter haha and there were  good other reasons for our rejection). When we were rejected by the panel there were many issues raised but not even a mention of cost effectiveness. I would bet quite a lot that half the panel that reviewed us didn't consider it important. Looking at DIV grants given last year im pretty dubious about whether cost effectiveness has been deeply considered for half of them.

Whether the org will die if they don't get funded, or the program won't complete, or the study will be stopped halfway through is somewhat immaterial if it's well below a given cost effectiveness bar.

This might sound obvious but I thought it could have come through a little more strongly maybe?

Also I could be a bit wrong here (and it's not super important), but my impression is that  the "contributing to funds" approach is more of an EA thing. Its a good approach for this audience, but most outside philanthropists and donors want to fund individual orgs rather than contribute to high impact general funds.  I suppose the post is mostly for this audience though so makes sense. 

Keep up the good work :)

Wow that's fantastic - I wonder who wrote it, that seems extremely EA flavoured.

I appreciate the curation at the top (fantastic post), but the forum is becoming a little thin on the ground for us Global Health Folks... If you've got a global health thought whether deep or shallow, please share it, at least I'll do my best to comment and engage :D.
 

Just a joke sorry for the confusion!

That's an interesting idea and might be a potent reform, but unfortunately I'd put it in the truly intractable category.

1 post and 2 comments on the forum ;) @yanni kyriacos 

Over half of long termists starting on something else is kind of insane. Although given the current landscape I suspect many of those if there entered now would have entered directly into long termism. Looking forward to seeing the data unfold!

Thanks thats a useful reply with your points 1 and 2 being quite reassuring.

Your no 4. that seems very optimistic. A more narrow focus send unlikely to increase interest over the whole spectrum of seekers coming to the sure, when the default is 80k being the front page of the EA Internet for all coners. The number of AI interested people getting hooked increasing more than the fallout for all other areas seems pretty unlikely.

And I can't really see a world where older people would be more attracted to a site which focuses on an emerging and largely young person's issue.

Yep there has to be aspects of Soldiering in any real world work, and I think that might be especially important in this AI scenario. I don't think its that spicy a take, @Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 had a great quick take along similar lines here too.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/efE6K5QCfzNTSb5pf/scouts-need-soldiers-for-their-work-to-be-worth-anything