haha I was hoping to provoke some discussion on the huge difference I found.

Otherwise, an email to Wren is free to write.

How much time/money were spent on these initiatives would you estimate as a percentage?

Is this due to more recent funding constraints?

Cool topic.

I think 'I could use this time more effectively to help other people'. And then I don't!

This is the key one to meditate on.

For me at least signing the giving pledge was a year of internalising that I have these values and I must eat them. Otherwise these aren't my values after all. Likewise for the standards of being a good friend, father, flutist etc.

Fortunately, GiveWell has agreed for me to post their response to my post on Independent Evaluation for Reputation; you can find it at the end of the post.

Reaping the benefits of AGI later is pretty insignificant in my opinion. If we get aligned AGI utopia, we will have utopia for millions of years. Acceleration by a few years if negligible if it increase p(doom) by >1%.

This is not true depending on what you think AGI utopia will look like. There's some math outlined in What We Owe the Future about this dilemma i.e. area under the curve of these hypothetical AGI utility functions.

$$\frac{{\int }_0^{\infty }{2}^{(x+1)},dx}{{\int }_0^{\infty }{2}^x,dx}=2$$

Getting utopia 1 year faster creates a 2x better universe. (hypothetically)

I hope so! Apparently the concept was received well with the team.

GiveWell's Carley Moor from their philantrophic outreach team contacted me and we had a conversation a few weeks ago which prompted this post.

Among other things I asked about independent verification there. The short answer seems to be no independent verification with the caveat that they adjust. The spreadsheets I linked were sourced from her.

They do fund at least one meta charity that help improve monitoring & evaluation at these charities.

I asked her to either post her response email here or let me post it verbatim and am awaiting to hear from her next week. Being cautious lest I misrepresent them.

Transparency is only a means for reputation. The world is built on trust and faith in the systems and EA is no different.

I believe more people would be alarmed by the lack of independent vetting than the nominal cost effective numbers being inaccurate themself. It feels like there are perverse incentives at play.

Appreciate the feedback, although can you elaborate on what you mean by impact data and progamattic data?

I agree I could have made a better case on the reputation part.

This is what I meant.