“Decent projects that some grantmakers funded and others didn't had cost effectivenesses of $5,000 to $10,000 And projects that we took seriously but mostly didn't end up funding unless there were hard to quantify reasons in favor were usually in the range of 1.10 to $20,000 Beyond $20,000 was the line where the human grantmakers I observed generally didn't treat...”

LessWrong (Curated & Popular) · "Towards The Autograntor" by Scott Alexander

Play from 54:36
54:36

Audio streams from the publisher’s own feed. Verbatim does not host or copy it.

What was described

reported cost-effectiveness ranges for mid-tier projects

$5,000 to $10,000 (decent), $10,000 to $20,000 (serious), >$20,000 (rarely funded)

Said nearby on the same subject

“The best project I tested had a cost effectiveness of 1.1 to $2,000 Excellent projects that most grantmakers were happy to fund had cost effectivenesses of 1.5 to $5,000”
♫
Said on LessWrong (Curated & Popular)
Hard number 1.1 to $2,000 (best), $5,000 to $10,000 (decent), $10,000 to $20,000 (… Share this moment
“Arun Balakrishnan of Sedans reported efficiency gains ranging from 35% to 50% in some deployments.”
♫
Said on The Connected Podcast
Why it worked 35% to 50% Share this moment
“We stopped doing a lot of mid-tier outreach and link building for a long time.”
♫
Said on The SEO Podcast: Page 2 Podcast
Business model Share this moment
“ChatGPT consistently gave results two to three times better, more cost-effective, than Claude for everything”
♫
Said on LessWrong (Curated & Popular)
Hard number two to three times better, more cost-effective Share this moment

Moments like this, every Monday

The strongest new moments on your topics, in the speakers' own words. Free for three topics.

No card. No password. One-click unsubscribe.

Track a competitor?

Pro watches up to 25 names or phrases and emails you the morning after they are said.

See Pro, $29 a month

Verbatim quotes a short extract and links to the episode; the episode belongs to its publisher. Remove a show.