That is good to know, I got a bit of sticker shock from the size of the increase. If in fact it is not trading off against other causes that makes me much less opposed to it. I can imagine an argument for Give Well as a good place to put large amounts of money that would be difficult to use well in the areas I listed, I just assumed it was trading off against those areas. Does CG publish an overview of all the money they have given in a year?
I think that Coefficient Giving’s decision to donate more money to GiveWell is a bad one and I would like to see more discussion of its pros and cons as well as any resources folks have that explain why CG made this decision.
The short form of why I think this is a bad call is that I think that for a wide range of beliefs on other issues (AI, Bio Sec, US Democracy, Reproductive Tech, emerging farming tech) the 10 year expected return on donations is much higher than in global health. Maybe this has already been talked to death but I’d like to see a discussion on it and if anyone has resources to past arguments I’d love to see them.
That’s helpful, do you know if they give any public details on how they split their money across the different worldviews?
I think these are underfunded and have great potential. I am also pretty pessimistic about global health funding so my bar is low for what tops it.
Thanks for that link, it’s good to hear that they are surging across all categories.
That is good to know, I got a bit of sticker shock from the size of the increase. If in fact it is not trading off against other causes that makes me much less opposed to it. I can imagine an argument for Give Well as a good place to put large amounts of money that would be difficult to use well in the areas I listed, I just assumed it was trading off against those areas. Does CG publish an overview of all the money they have given in a year?
I think that Coefficient Giving’s decision to donate more money to GiveWell is a bad one and I would like to see more discussion of its pros and cons as well as any resources folks have that explain why CG made this decision.
The short form of why I think this is a bad call is that I think that for a wide range of beliefs on other issues (AI, Bio Sec, US Democracy, Reproductive Tech, emerging farming tech) the 10 year expected return on donations is much higher than in global health. Maybe this has already been talked to death but I’d like to see a discussion on it and if anyone has resources to past arguments I’d love to see them.