Why the AI windfall should build new grantmakers, not just bigger ones
Originally published at my Funding Anthropalypse Substack.
Imagine you could live in one of two worlds in 2027.
In the first, Coefficient Giving is twice as big.
In the second, there are two Coefficient Givings of the same size.
Which seems better to you?
Having considered it for a while, I would choose the second world. Put plainly, two Coefficient Givings beat one twice as big. I think the potential $37bn+ AI windfall is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to achieve this, with significant long-term benefits.
Is effective giving too concentrated?
In my view, yes.
Coefficient Giving (and to a great extent GiveWell) have enormous influence and power within the ecosystem, by virtue of their size and track records. Coefficient Giving is also the predominant or only funder in some of its domains, such as funding the effective giving ecosystem and farm animal welfare.
The situation seems analogous to a monopsony in economics:
> monopsony, in economic theory, is a market situation in which there is only one buyer... Although cases of pure monopsony are rare, monopsonistic elements are found wherever there are many sellers and few purchasers. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
You could argue that there is in fact a diversity of funding in some cost-effective cause areas. For example, in AI safety, there is Longview Philanthropy, the Survival and Flourishing Fund, Astralis, the AI Safety Tactical Opportunities Fund etc.
In global health, there is the Gates Foundation (granting roughly 20x more than GiveWell and 8.5x more than Coefficient Giving each year); the remaining bilateral and multilateral funders; and a large number of smaller foundations (Mulago, CRI, WAM Foundation, DRK etc.). You could therefore also claim that the global health landscape is sufficiently diverse.
However, Coefficient Giving outsources a substantial amount of its global health grantmaking to GiveWell - around $1bn to date,