🏅 Top traders

Note that, as per our Tournament rules, "A market will resolve in favor of a project being funded if Clearer Thinking selects that project as one to provide any funding to (even if, for some reason, the project fails to receive the money - for instance, if it is shut down by the people running it before the money is received)." 

We selected this project and recommended that the Future Fund provide funding to it, which is why the market is resolving as "yes." However, the Future Fund did not act on our recommendation to give a grant to this project at this time. For those interested, note that BASIC welcomes funding for their proposed nuclear off-ramps project, and the reference checks we conducted about their project leaders reflected favorably upon them.

"nuclear off ramps"

@BTE stable diffusion's version of nuclear off ramps

Same concern as the other project from BASIC, like what others have mentioned, I'm not sure they as an organization are a fit for this grant.

The FTXFF section on Great Power Relations says "While great power relations are clearly important, it’s not clear how to influence outcomes in this area for the better. We know there are complex dynamics at play and we’re wary of making things worse." And they subsequently list very neutral projects, like direct communication lines and increasing "understanding and cooperation" between countries. BASIC is a pro-disarmament think tank, the original name for their other grant application was "Nuclear Winter is Coming." Funding and promoting an opinionated think tank in this space is clearly not what FTXFF is looking for.

This project in isolation seems pretty neutral, but would require overcoming the barrier of FTXFF being associated with this type of org. It'd need to be unusually good to merit that, but this seems like another "produce a document" type project, of which there's plenty of other options.

There's definitely worse projects to fund, but this doesn't clear the top 50% threshold for me.

As I read through these I am getting the impression they are all going to get an award of some amount, but not necessarily what they asked for.

@BTE Right. this is a concern (for my no position).

However, if you notice, BASIC has 2 applications in the running, I am not aware that this is an established EA org, presumably we don’t just give rando orgs double grants & we would test their outputs on a single project first.
Hence the pair of them should have a ~0.5x multiplier on what you would otherwise assign them.

BASIC itself has been around for 35 years, yet they haven’t mentioned in the applications any measurable accomplishments they have made in this time. Tho they do point to credentials, conferences & toolkits (What does that mean? I don’t really know. What did the conferences tangibly achieve? How was the toolkit used to reduce nuclear threats? By what mechanism? Did you move the needle or were these actions going to happen anyway?)
They have asked for the absolute max amount (maybe twice?), but as you say perhaps they will receive a partial grant.
Tho they do not appear to struggle for funding outside of EA -> The counterfactual is not great (which is v important to consider)

And as Nuno/Misha have indicated, Clearer Thinking is probably not positioned well for these particular applications. If we have cause specific funders, we should direct relevant applications to them, this is good practice & makes sense in VC as much as in EA. pls dont burn money to reach 14/28.
Ofc cause specific funders may make mistakes but these particular applications are really not blowing my socks off (So much wordceling wtf. Why does it have so many words and yet so little meat, where are the arguments for why these things are good ideas? & importantly how the "toolkits" made in the past have lead to impact? How is it different from current crisis resolution? How will it deal with context specificity?) 

When they are finally pinned down and asked, for the love of god, to give one single promising strategy. The response was more wordcel and weak at best. (I'm pretty sure strategists are thinking about "sanctions and arms control" like er everyday. And many of them will have the historical context of past nuclear crises already. Perhaps some of them could be refreshed but hardly a needle mover.)

@GeorgeVii other application https://manifold.markets/clearthinkbot/will-we-fund-mainstreaming-nuclear

These decisions are taken at the highest level. An individual who can influence the nuclear doctrine of the U.S., for example, might be Michael McFaul, who served as Ambassador to Russia and now is a Director of Stanford’s Institute for International Studies.

I work in non-proliferation studies and I’m not convinced by the idea that de-escalation from nuclear war (off-ramps) can be reduced to a toolkit, since de-escalation is always going to be context-specific. Most of the decision-makers who the toolkit is envisioned for have spent long careers developing a deep knowledge of this subject and weighing possible responses based on country law, individual leaders’ nuclear doctrine, current politics and theories of international relations. They would be unlikely to refer to a toolkit written by someone who is not a recognised expert.

@EmmaRolls My reading of the application and toolkit is different. The project considers the context dependent nature of conflict and is using case studies to uncover the essential components (optimal conditions and core ingredients etc) to help decision-makers in their tailored off-ramp choices. I think that developing an awareness of this could be beneficial.

@RCE1 The basic issue is that no-one who would be at the table in a nuclear crisis is going to be referring to this work. Maybe if it had some other mechanism for generating impact at a different level that requires less authority/expertise, like educating the general public, it would be worth funding.

@EmmaRolls False! Decision-makers at the “table” do not decide in isolation and are always surrounded by officials, staffers, etc. They read the materials and listen to the ideas that come from the NGO community. Where do you think we get most ideas from? Since the 50’s, the nuclear NGO folks have proven to be a value resource and we rely on their input.

My point is that if one of the world’s leading authorities has read 10,000 articles on this subject and discussed it with colleagues for 30 years, even if they read this guide it will only occupy a tiny amount of headspace. If the research is not going to be original and is more of a literature review then it is difficult to explain why it should be funded. How to de-escalate nuclear war is a decillion dollar question in international relations and I suspect that what would be in the literature summary will be common knowledge in the field. It’s not clear how this would be anything other than nuclear diplomacy 101.

I’ve spent my career working on nuclear deterrence from within the government and can honestly say that this resource tool is needed and comes at the right time. I hope this gets funded as I can easily see my colleagues reaching for the nuclear off-ramp toolkit and framework when the s***t hits the fan - during a crisis and war between the nuclear possessors the optics will change and previously relied upon risk reduction measures will become moribund.

The project also has a peer-review process, which instantly elevates its attractiveness and credibility. It’s an excellent and original idea!

I feel that this is a well thought out project that meets an important global need. I worry about nuclear escalation and if human behavior and near-misses are anything to go by, then we should take these risks seriously. I really like how the 'integrity' of the toolkit and framework will be tested in a crisis simulation with officials and experts. If successful, this project could help prevent dumb officials from destroying the planet.

Does the R in your name stand for Rishi?

This application seems like a ton of words and not much clarity on how this will actually reduce x-risk, besides creating a "toolkit and framework" that seems to be treated as a panacea.

Also: to "Of all the existing projects you’re aware of in the world, which is the most similar to yours, and why do you think yours represents an improvement (or is worth doing despite the existence of this other related project)?" the applicant answered "Our extensive desk-based research and outreach with a wide range of expert colleagues, and policy practitioners, has led the project team to deduce that this project is unique; no other project is alike, or pursuing the same goals and objectives."

What??? There's no other project even remotely similar, like at least in the goal of reducing nuclear risk? Could you at least discuss the Nuclear Threat Initiative and why they haven't done something similar?

@EliLifland I think that risk reduction is generally an umbrella term and from my reading of this proposal, this project is quite specific in trying to develop a mechanism and tool for nuclear off-ramp planning during a crisis and in war. Looking at the Nuclear Threat Initiative website, they do not appear to have a similar project. The proposal also has a good explanation of why the nuclear community have overlooked this.

“A strong proponent of diversity and inclusion in the field, Sebastian provided the original thought leadership behind BASIC’s Emerging Voices Network and co-founded the breakfast series that produced the Gender, Think Tanks and International Affairs Toolkit (2021) with Chatham House and the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy. Sebastian is a Gender Champion in Nuclear Policy,”

🤔