Fair enough. I have no doubt that they picked the term for marketing purposes. But I'm sure you're right that they would defend it as "highest EV," as opposed to "rigorously studied causal chain."
Well, the lack of consensus on GCR's efficacy is exactly the thing I'm pointing out. A highly untraceable intervention should not be called "super effective" ... I think that risks undermining their credibility. "Potentially a good long-term bet" is very, very different from "super-effective, expert-vetted."
I was just wondering if there was something I was missing about the proven efficacy of GCR interventions. It sounds like I'm not...in which case, I think it's a really bad idea for GivingMultiplier to pass those off like they have the proven efficacy of GHD interventions. It feels misleading, and I'm more "EA-friendly" than the average person they're probably targeting.
And I have no strong view on GCR interventions. Seems like they'd be hard to prove traceability/impact, but I haven't spend much time thinking about it.
Agreed. I was surprised that they'd describe something so speculative as expert-vetted, super effective, etc. If something hasn't undergone multiple RCTs, then I don't think it should be promoted as such a highly effective, sure thing.
I wrote this in a post, but it might be a better quick take: Would you describe charities within GCR as "super-effective?" They may or may not be good long-term bets, but clearly the outcomes are very uncertain & hard to trace. Whereas GHD + Animal Welfare are probably much more trackable.
I'm asking because I saw on GivingMultiplier.org that they were marketing GCR charities as "highly effective," and that gave me pause.
For the sake of provocation: How is managing Cluelessness in Philanthropy any different from managing Cluelessness in, say, running a neighborhood coffee shop?
There is an unknowable amount of cause-effect relationships involved in running a business. Is there anything unique about Philanthropic modeling? Modeling dynamical systems is, in general, notoriously hard.
I wrote a few paragraphs fleshing out my question here if anybody wants to respond to me more in full.
Hi RP team. Thanks for being so open & explaining your methodology.
I've read a bit through your methodology, and I have a hard time shaking the feeling that animal welfare allocation shouldn't be 2.5x spend on human welfare. Instinctively that feels too high.
Similarly...with how effective GHD interventions are, I also have a hard time believing AI risk should command 2x the allocation of public health. There is extreme deep uncertainty with AI risk especially. It feels treacherous to even attempt to model something like that.
How do you respond to that objection? i.e. my intuition that more money shouldn't be spent on animal welfare than human welfare (much less 2.5x more). And feel free to speak on the modeling of AI risk too. That feels like a massive unknown to dedicate 1/3 of your fund to.
OK interesting. To put it mildly, that feels...speculative.
I would think it makes more sense to start with proven, immediate things & then expand outwards from there. Global Health feels like an obvious #1 to me, whereas AI-alignment feels like a #8.
Putting a probability on AI-alignment issues is a complete shot in the dark. Nobody knows. Whereas there is zero dispute about the effectiveness of immunizations.
Am I missing something? This logic feels painfully obvious to me. What am I missing?
#1 was AI-safety, #2 power concentration, etc...and #8 was global health.
I agree AI safety & factory farming are important...but more important than Global Health? AI safety MIGHT be a problem...whereas we KNOW Global Health is a problem.
Idk if they were intentionally ranking things or not, but they kinda were whether they meant to or not.
Does this actually reflect their thinking? That seems bewildering to me that they might think AI Safety is "more important" than something as imemdiate & tractable as Public Health.
Fair enough. I have no doubt that they picked the term for marketing purposes. But I'm sure you're right that they would defend it as "highest EV," as opposed to "rigorously studied causal chain."
Well, the lack of consensus on GCR's efficacy is exactly the thing I'm pointing out. A highly untraceable intervention should not be called "super effective" ... I think that risks undermining their credibility. "Potentially a good long-term bet" is very, very different from "super-effective, expert-vetted."
I was just wondering if there was something I was missing about the proven efficacy of GCR interventions. It sounds like I'm not...in which case, I think it's a really bad idea for GivingMultiplier to pass those off like they have the proven efficacy of GHD interventions. It feels misleading, and I'm more "EA-friendly" than the average person they're probably targeting.
And I have no strong view on GCR interventions. Seems like they'd be hard to prove traceability/impact, but I haven't spend much time thinking about it.
Agreed. I was surprised that they'd describe something so speculative as expert-vetted, super effective, etc. If something hasn't undergone multiple RCTs, then I don't think it should be promoted as such a highly effective, sure thing.
I wrote this in a post, but it might be a better quick take: Would you describe charities within GCR as "super-effective?" They may or may not be good long-term bets, but clearly the outcomes are very uncertain & hard to trace. Whereas GHD + Animal Welfare are probably much more trackable.
I'm asking because I saw on GivingMultiplier.org that they were marketing GCR charities as "highly effective," and that gave me pause.
Awesome -- thanks Jim. Reading through some of these now
For the sake of provocation: How is managing Cluelessness in Philanthropy any different from managing Cluelessness in, say, running a neighborhood coffee shop?
There is an unknowable amount of cause-effect relationships involved in running a business. Is there anything unique about Philanthropic modeling? Modeling dynamical systems is, in general, notoriously hard.
I wrote a few paragraphs fleshing out my question here if anybody wants to respond to me more in full.
Hi RP team. Thanks for being so open & explaining your methodology.
I've read a bit through your methodology, and I have a hard time shaking the feeling that animal welfare allocation shouldn't be 2.5x spend on human welfare. Instinctively that feels too high.
Similarly...with how effective GHD interventions are, I also have a hard time believing AI risk should command 2x the allocation of public health. There is extreme deep uncertainty with AI risk especially. It feels treacherous to even attempt to model something like that.
How do you respond to that objection? i.e. my intuition that more money shouldn't be spent on animal welfare than human welfare (much less 2.5x more). And feel free to speak on the modeling of AI risk too. That feels like a massive unknown to dedicate 1/3 of your fund to.
OK interesting. To put it mildly, that feels...speculative.
I would think it makes more sense to start with proven, immediate things & then expand outwards from there. Global Health feels like an obvious #1 to me, whereas AI-alignment feels like a #8.
Putting a probability on AI-alignment issues is a complete shot in the dark. Nobody knows. Whereas there is zero dispute about the effectiveness of immunizations.
Am I missing something? This logic feels painfully obvious to me. What am I missing?
I was reading through 80,000 Hours's home page, and their "Most pressing problems" section was interesting to me. https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/
#1 was AI-safety, #2 power concentration, etc...and #8 was global health.
I agree AI safety & factory farming are important...but more important than Global Health? AI safety MIGHT be a problem...whereas we KNOW Global Health is a problem.
Idk if they were intentionally ranking things or not, but they kinda were whether they meant to or not.
Does this actually reflect their thinking? That seems bewildering to me that they might think AI Safety is "more important" than something as imemdiate & tractable as Public Health.
Anybody in this community focused on international law? Human Rights law, etc.
Also would love to get pointed to any groups of EA-like folks donating to/raising money for international law non-profits (like HRW, etc).