Jemist's Shortform

J Bostock

This is a special post for quick takes by J Bostock. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

Coefficient Giving is one of the worst name changes I've ever heard:

Coefficient Giving sounds bad while OpenPhil sounded cool and snappy.
Coefficient doesn't really mean anything in this context, clearly it's a pun on "co" and "efficient" but that is also confusing. They say "A coefficient multiplies the value of whatever it's paired with" but that's just true of any number?
They're a grantmaker who don't really advise normal individuals about where to give their money, so why "Giving" when their main thing is soliciting large philanthropic efforts and then auditing that
Coefficient Giving doesn't tell you what the company does at the start! "Good Ventures" and "GiveWell" tell you roughly what the company is doing.
"Coefficient" is a really weird word, so you're burning weirdness points with the literal first thing anyone will ever hear you say, this seems like a name which you would only thing is good if you're already deep into rat/ea spaces.
It sounds bad. Open Philanthropy rolls off the tongue, as does OpenPhil. OH-puhn fi-LAN-thruh-pee. Two sets of three. CO-uh-fish-unt GI-ving is an awkward four-two with a half-emphasis on the fish of coefficient. Sounds bad. I'm coming back to this point but there is no possible shortening other than "Coefficient" which is bad because it's just an abstract noun and not very identifiable, whereas "OpenPhil" was a unique identifier. CoGive maybe, but then you have two stressed syllables which is awkward. It mildly offends my tongue to have to even utter their name.

Clearly OP wanted to shed their existing reputation, but man, this is a really bad name choice.

On the flip side the OpenAI foundation now have the occasion to do the funniest thing.

20tlevin1y

Other commenters have said most of what I was going to say, but a few other points in defense: * On it sounding bad, I think time will tell. We are biased towards liking familiar stimuli. * Coefficient Giving doesn't tell you what we do, but neither did Open Philanthropy. And fwiw, neither does Good Ventures, IMO -- or many nonprofits, e.g. Lightcone Infrastructure, Redwood Research, the Red Cross. Agreed that GiveWell is a very descriptive and good name though. * Setting aside whether "coefficient" is a weird word, I don't think having an unusual word in your name "burns weirdness points" in a costly way. Take some of the world's biggest companies -- Nvidia ("invidious,") Google ("googol"), Meta -- these aren't especially common words, but it seems to have worked out for them. * The emphasis of "coefficient" is on the "fish." So it's not an "awkward four-two," it's three sets of two, which seems melodic enough (cf. 80,000 Hours, Lightcone Infrastructure, European Union, Make-A-Wish Foundation, etc). * On the no possible shortening, again, time will tell, but my money is on "CG," which seems fine.

3Raemon1y

Guy-stand-up.jpg I dunno I think Coefficient Giving sounds fine.

Jemist's Shortform

7

Jemist's Shortform

7