I don't know - it certainly seems to me that this seriously tarnishes the credibility of Give Well, whose stated aim is to improve everyone's (not just Dustin's) charitable resource allocation.
The likelihood that this $30m is the best possible use of that money? It just happens to be that this personal connection occurs by chance? Pretty much zero. Of course all opportunities in life are down to your network, but this is pretty cut-and-dry nepotism.
If this were a totally unrelated personal investment by Dustin in a friend, it would not be seen as problematic. By investing through these supposedly impartial organisations that aim to influence everyone's behaviour, their credibility in this mission is clearly harmed.
(At least this my initial response, while allowing that this may change if a more detailed analysis shows this to be misplaced. But without this expression of mistrust, such an analysis is highly unlikely to take place, and I do not immediately see how it could fully alleviate this concern)
This personal connection did not occur by chance, but the causality you assign is reversed. Holden did not support OpenAI because his housemates work there. Rather, it is because of their similar worldviews that they live together in the first place. It is unsurprising that people who think safe AGI is a critically important investment end up in the same social circle.
Holden isn't an AGI researcher though, he's a person who's made his name arguing that some charities are much more efficient uses of money than others. Indeed when asked to review the Singularity Institute, as well as criticising the organisation itself he gave long and detailed arguments why he didn't think unfriendly AGI was a threat, was sceptical about trying to combat it through AI research and dismissed the general form of arguments about the crucial importance of donating to it as "Pascal's mugging". At best you could say he was more open-minded towards the possibility his mind might be changed on the issue than the average person.
It would be difficult to imagine that two people with very close relationships to him working for OpenAI haven't influenced his apparent change of heart; whether they've converted him to the cause by sheer force of intellectual argument or not it doesn't look great.
So holding a similar world view is enough for me to get a $30m investment to pursue research? No; holding a similar world view, being friends with, and having familial ties. This is the definition of nepotism.
Otherwise a large percentage of Hacker News should now be expecting similar investments to pursue research projects.
Look, I do not really care if somebody rich invests in somebody they know. But I do now doubt GiveWell's impartiality of analysis in other instances, and general good judgement. I will not be using their judgement to inform my charitable giving.
"The Open Philanthropy Project is a collaboration between Good Ventures and GiveWell in which we identify outstanding giving opportunities, make grants, follow the results, and publish our findings. The Project is not, itself, an organization."
edit: I cannot reply to the below, so I will edit my comment.
I am aware that GiveWell does not invest money. Instead it provides impartial analysis of investment impact. My contention is that this was not impartial. Dustin can handle his own money, but:
People using GiveWell to decide their own investments should now think twice in my view. Which kind of defeats the whole point.
> The Open Philanthropy Project typically recommends grants to the Open Philanthropy Project fund, a donor advised fund at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Support for the Open Philanthropy Project fund comes primarily from Good Ventures, though other donors have contributed as well. In some cases, the Open Philanthropy Project makes grant recommendations directly to Good Ventures.
It's basically all GV money - that is to say, Dustin and Cari's money.
The likelihood that this $30m is the best possible use of that money? It just happens to be that this personal connection occurs by chance? Pretty much zero. Of course all opportunities in life are down to your network, but this is pretty cut-and-dry nepotism.
If this were a totally unrelated personal investment by Dustin in a friend, it would not be seen as problematic. By investing through these supposedly impartial organisations that aim to influence everyone's behaviour, their credibility in this mission is clearly harmed.
(At least this my initial response, while allowing that this may change if a more detailed analysis shows this to be misplaced. But without this expression of mistrust, such an analysis is highly unlikely to take place, and I do not immediately see how it could fully alleviate this concern)