As someone privy to only a small fraction of it, I suspect there is a large quantity of private information that leads those in the know to conclude that a lot of philanthropic dollars are coming, including to global health and development.
Would be interested in seeing a version of this that looks at WELLBYs or otherwise uses moral weights to holistically judge all of the portfolio's effects. But, this piece does seem like a convincing example of the idea the best charities are 100–1000× more effective than the average charity.
You may be interested to know that GiveWell didn’t start out as a GHD evaluator. The initial idea was to evaluate many different cause areas, including economic opportunity and education. But I think what happened is that once they had compiled the research, donors saw that the GHD stuff was like 10,000× more cost effective, so the other cause areas didn’t attract much money moved and in 2012 they shut the other cause areas down. 2009 was the year GiveWell discovered AMF, and other than that, their 2009 top charities list is pretty unrecognizable.
It sounds like you are struggling with whether it is better to have true belief or comforting ones. Maybe you can take comfort in knowing this is not a new dilemma! As early utilitarian John Stuart Mill wrote, “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
I think partly this is a reaction to dishonest charity fundraising communications that say things like “Donate today and your gift will be matched 8×”, when in reality either the match limit is virtually guaranteed to met or else the matching donor would offset any unused matching funds with a separate donation.
So consider your last sentence — maybe if I do the thing you will give an extra $100 at the end of the year or if I don’t do the thing you will give an extra $150 at the end of the year. Technically I only gave the $50 gift if you did the thing, but in reality there was no counterfactual difference in total giving.
I notice there was no attempt at a BOTEC here and my impression is that the harms from PFAS are extremely marginal. Have you attempted to calculate how many lives could be saved even by completely eliminating PFAS?
We’ve started the process of creating a brand new codebase for the forum
Do you mind writing some words about why the EA forum needs to have its own codebase, as opposed to use one of the approximately 10,000 pre-existing web forum software packages?
I certainly think being an evaluator is hard; but I was referring to the difficulty of choosing an evaluator.
GiveWell is able to provide extremely transparent and legible background to all their grants and recommendations, which makes it very easy to trust their decisionmaking. Essentially, I am confident that GiveWell is doing a good job at their recommendations because (a) I dug carefully into their reasoning and it holds up very well, even the parts that I validated independently/personally, and (b) it's relatively easy to verify the claims made by GiveWell's critics (at least with respect to GiveWell).
In politics, I don't really think any of that applies. It's inherently adversarial, which among other things means a good evaluator can't really be fully transparent: Much of the most important information is shared in private. Sure Eric Neyman exists; but as an outsider I don't really see how to validate his work in the way that I can with GiveWell. And if an evaluator of political donations were to accumulate a lot of followers, they would in turn become a target of political operatives that would limit their ability to maneuver.
I know a lobbyist personally and while he's able to give me a lot more candor than would be possible in public, I still don't really feel like I have a good sense of how effective his work is as a whole. Working with a stranger would be even tougher.
election campaign contributions might be a way in which you can have a substantial impact as a small donor
However, I also get the sense that it's quite hard, in a way that (for example) following GiveWell recommendations isn't. Politics is highly anti-inductive and it's really hard to know how and where to give, and even in retrospect it can often be hard to tell if one's donations made a difference.
Personally I stay away from political donations just because I feel like I don't understand it well, and getting that understanding is really quite difficult. It's hard to have true beliefs about politics for a variety of reasons.
I think the claim is that while this intervention wasn’t as cost effective as we thought, it’s still more cost effective than most interventions. The belief regarding the cost effectiveness (about a third as good as we thought) is itself supported by evidence, so if you think the best options are 10× as good as the average ones, you would still expect this one to be “above average”. Not sure about 90th percentile but I do think there’s a fair amount of NGO work whose effectiveness is statist indistinguishable from zero, and a minority that’s arguable actively harmful.
As someone privy to only a small fraction of it, I suspect there is a large quantity of private information that leads those in the know to conclude that a lot of philanthropic dollars are coming, including to global health and development.
Would be interested in seeing a version of this that looks at WELLBYs or otherwise uses moral weights to holistically judge all of the portfolio's effects. But, this piece does seem like a convincing example of the idea the best charities are 100–1000× more effective than the average charity.
You may be interested to know that GiveWell didn’t start out as a GHD evaluator. The initial idea was to evaluate many different cause areas, including economic opportunity and education. But I think what happened is that once they had compiled the research, donors saw that the GHD stuff was like 10,000× more cost effective, so the other cause areas didn’t attract much money moved and in 2012 they shut the other cause areas down. 2009 was the year GiveWell discovered AMF, and other than that, their 2009 top charities list is pretty unrecognizable.
It sounds like you are struggling with whether it is better to have true belief or comforting ones. Maybe you can take comfort in knowing this is not a new dilemma! As early utilitarian John Stuart Mill wrote, “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
I think partly this is a reaction to dishonest charity fundraising communications that say things like “Donate today and your gift will be matched 8×”, when in reality either the match limit is virtually guaranteed to met or else the matching donor would offset any unused matching funds with a separate donation.
So consider your last sentence — maybe if I do the thing you will give an extra $100 at the end of the year or if I don’t do the thing you will give an extra $150 at the end of the year. Technically I only gave the $50 gift if you did the thing, but in reality there was no counterfactual difference in total giving.
I notice there was no attempt at a BOTEC here and my impression is that the harms from PFAS are extremely marginal. Have you attempted to calculate how many lives could be saved even by completely eliminating PFAS?
Do you mind writing some words about why the EA forum needs to have its own codebase, as opposed to use one of the approximately 10,000 pre-existing web forum software packages?
I certainly think being an evaluator is hard; but I was referring to the difficulty of choosing an evaluator.
GiveWell is able to provide extremely transparent and legible background to all their grants and recommendations, which makes it very easy to trust their decisionmaking. Essentially, I am confident that GiveWell is doing a good job at their recommendations because (a) I dug carefully into their reasoning and it holds up very well, even the parts that I validated independently/personally, and (b) it's relatively easy to verify the claims made by GiveWell's critics (at least with respect to GiveWell).
In politics, I don't really think any of that applies. It's inherently adversarial, which among other things means a good evaluator can't really be fully transparent: Much of the most important information is shared in private. Sure Eric Neyman exists; but as an outsider I don't really see how to validate his work in the way that I can with GiveWell. And if an evaluator of political donations were to accumulate a lot of followers, they would in turn become a target of political operatives that would limit their ability to maneuver.
I know a lobbyist personally and while he's able to give me a lot more candor than would be possible in public, I still don't really feel like I have a good sense of how effective his work is as a whole. Working with a stranger would be even tougher.
My sense is that this is absolutely true:
However, I also get the sense that it's quite hard, in a way that (for example) following GiveWell recommendations isn't. Politics is highly anti-inductive and it's really hard to know how and where to give, and even in retrospect it can often be hard to tell if one's donations made a difference.
Personally I stay away from political donations just because I feel like I don't understand it well, and getting that understanding is really quite difficult. It's hard to have true beliefs about politics for a variety of reasons.
I think the claim is that while this intervention wasn’t as cost effective as we thought, it’s still more cost effective than most interventions. The belief regarding the cost effectiveness (about a third as good as we thought) is itself supported by evidence, so if you think the best options are 10× as good as the average ones, you would still expect this one to be “above average”. Not sure about 90th percentile but I do think there’s a fair amount of NGO work whose effectiveness is statist indistinguishable from zero, and a minority that’s arguable actively harmful.