I think the key story here is that Open Phil has ramped up donations from $30m to over $120m (4-fold growth in a year), and is expected to increase that several times more in the next few years, but this would be easy to miss in the presentation above.
I haven't had an easy way of linking to that opinion before; now I do. So as an 80k donor I'm glad they also see the value of distancing themselves from the 'it's all good as long as you donate' position.
To be clear, you think it's worth spending a few hundred quid apiece for linkable resources like this? (I.e. you'd pay others a similar amount in an impact purchase if they did so.)
you run the risk of discounting the impact of any project in which multiple actors were involved unless you have a precise break down of the causal power of each. That would essentially mean that it never looked worthwhile to engage with governments
If you look at what I said, you'll see it doesn't imply that - it's simply saying we should do our best job at estimating the impact of GPP, with a spelt out justification of this, and that without this the reallocation of the £2.5bn shouldn't be relied upon as a tangible result.
Yes this is absolutely not a thing that just GPP did - which is why I tried to call out in this post that several other groups were important to recommending it!
I have to admit I skimmed over that as I was reading it. It does make it especially unegregious, and I tried to be clear that I didn't think you were doing anything wrong! I believe it was easy to skim over because it wasn't flagged as a qualification to the claim that this was a tangible result, but as I said I understand you can't really make qualifications explicit when needing to raise money.
(And also something I emphasised in the facebook post you link to.)
A late thank you!
That's not EA as a movement though.
What's the explanatory gap argument?
When is EA Global, particularly in the UK?
Do you have any of your research to date on this written up in a form that you can share and people can comment on?
This is an interesting discussion, people listing high earning careers which're comparatively easy to get: https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/permalink/1002743319782025/
Me also.
To be clear, you think it's worth spending a few hundred quid apiece for linkable resources like this? (I.e. you'd pay others a similar amount in an impact purchase if they did so.)
If you look at what I said, you'll see it doesn't imply that - it's simply saying we should do our best job at estimating the impact of GPP, with a spelt out justification of this, and that without this the reallocation of the £2.5bn shouldn't be relied upon as a tangible result.
I have to admit I skimmed over that as I was reading it. It does make it especially unegregious, and I tried to be clear that I didn't think you were doing anything wrong! I believe it was easy to skim over because it wasn't flagged as a qualification to the claim that this was a tangible result, but as I said I understand you can't really make qualifications explicit when needing to raise money.
That's entirely true.