[Giving just my impression before updating on others people’s views.]
Very briefly:
I think donating to GiveWell top charities (and more generally donating to charities that have been selected not primarily for their long-term effects) clearly doesn’t maximize long-term impact, at least at first glance. I think this is shown by arguments such as the following:
In some cases, there may be reasons other than the long-term effect of the funded charity’s work in favor of giving to GiveWell charities. For example, perhaps this better maintains someone’s motivation and altruism, thus increasing the long-term impact of their non-donation activities. Or perhaps this will better allow them to share their excitement for effective altruism with others, thus allowing them to acquire more resources, including for long-term causes.
However, I’m skeptical that these reasons are often decisive, except maybe in some extremely idiosyncratic cases.
I don’t have much of a view on FP’s climate change charities in particular. My best guess is they are higher-impact than GiveWell charities from a long-term perspective. However, I’d also guess there are other options that are even better from just a narrow impact perspective. Examples include:
It’s much more plausible to me that among options that have been selected for having ‘reasonably high long-term impacts’ “secondary” considerations such as the ones mentioned above can be decisive (i.e. effect on motivation or ability to promote EA, etc.).
Also, I’m not sure how the donation lottery is a good opportunity from a long-term impact perspective. If I were a pure longtermist I would just trust the EA LTFF and I think that they are better suited to pick longtermist grant opportunities (given that they have more experience vetting organizations and people in this space) than me spending time myself evaluating longtermist opportunities.
Also, I’m not sure how the donation lottery is a good opportunity from a long-term impact perspective. If I were a pure longtermist I would just trust the EA LTFF
I agree that asking whether oneself expects to make higher-impact grants than EA Funds is a key question here.
However, note that you retain the option to give to EA Funds if you win the donor lottery. So in this sense the donor lottery can’t be worse than giving to EA Funds directly, unless you think that winning itself impairs your judgment or similar (or causes you to waste time searching for alternatives, or …).
Also, I do think that at least some donors will be able to make better grants than EA Funds. Yes, EA Fund managers have more grantmaking experience. However, they are also quite time-constrained, and so a donor lottery winner may be able to invest more time per grant/money granted.
In addition, donors may possess idiosyncratic knowledge that would be too costly to transfer to fund managers. For example, suppose there was a great opportunity to fund biosecurity policy work in the Philippines—it might be more likely that a member of EA Philippines hears about, and is able to evaluate, this opportunity than an EA Funds member (e.g. because this requires a lot of background knowledge on the country). [This is a hypothetical example to illustrate the idea, I don’t want to make a claim that this specifically is likely.]
These points are also explained in more detail in the post on donor lotteries I linked to.
Thanks for pointing out that the donor could still give to EA funds if they win the donor lottery—I forgot about that. So yeah I would agree now that the donor lottery can’t be worse than giving to EA Funds directly.
I guess a question I have is how much time should a donor who wins the donor lottery invest if they win it, and how many hours would be considered more than what an EA fund manager would spend?
Also, I do see that donors could possess idiosyncratic knowledge that fund managers don’t have, or know funding opportunities that fund managers don’t. Thanks for illustrating the example on biosecurity policy work in the Philippines. Unfortunately I don’t think that biosecurity policy work in the Philippines is that effective to work on, given that it’s probably better to do biosecurity policy work in countries with more developed research fields in biotechnology/biosecurity. I haven’t looked into or thought about it that much but those would be my views currently.
Could you clarify what you mean by “narrow impact perspective”?
That was unclear, sorry. I again meant impact from just the funded charity’s work. As opposed to effects on the motivation or ability to acquire resources of the donor, etc.
[Giving just my impression before updating on others people’s views.]
Very briefly:
I think donating to GiveWell top charities (and more generally donating to charities that have been selected not primarily for their long-term effects) clearly doesn’t maximize long-term impact, at least at first glance. I think this is shown by arguments such as the following:
Evidence, cluelessness, and the long-term
If you value future people, why do you consider near-term effects?
Beware surprising and suspicious convergence
In some cases, there may be reasons other than the long-term effect of the funded charity’s work in favor of giving to GiveWell charities. For example, perhaps this better maintains someone’s motivation and altruism, thus increasing the long-term impact of their non-donation activities. Or perhaps this will better allow them to share their excitement for effective altruism with others, thus allowing them to acquire more resources, including for long-term causes.
However, I’m skeptical that these reasons are often decisive, except maybe in some extremely idiosyncratic cases.
I don’t have much of a view on FP’s climate change charities in particular. My best guess is they are higher-impact than GiveWell charities from a long-term perspective. However, I’d also guess there are other options that are even better from just a narrow impact perspective. Examples include:
Donation lotteries
The EA Long-Term Future Fund
It’s much more plausible to me that among options that have been selected for having ‘reasonably high long-term impacts’ “secondary” considerations such as the ones mentioned above can be decisive (i.e. effect on motivation or ability to promote EA, etc.).
Hey Max, thanks for this. Could you clarify what you mean by “narrow impact perspective”? Do you mean from a purely long-term impact perspective?
Also, I’m not sure how the donation lottery is a good opportunity from a long-term impact perspective. If I were a pure longtermist I would just trust the EA LTFF and I think that they are better suited to pick longtermist grant opportunities (given that they have more experience vetting organizations and people in this space) than me spending time myself evaluating longtermist opportunities.
I agree that asking whether oneself expects to make higher-impact grants than EA Funds is a key question here.
However, note that you retain the option to give to EA Funds if you win the donor lottery. So in this sense the donor lottery can’t be worse than giving to EA Funds directly, unless you think that winning itself impairs your judgment or similar (or causes you to waste time searching for alternatives, or …).
Also, I do think that at least some donors will be able to make better grants than EA Funds. Yes, EA Fund managers have more grantmaking experience. However, they are also quite time-constrained, and so a donor lottery winner may be able to invest more time per grant/money granted.
In addition, donors may possess idiosyncratic knowledge that would be too costly to transfer to fund managers. For example, suppose there was a great opportunity to fund biosecurity policy work in the Philippines—it might be more likely that a member of EA Philippines hears about, and is able to evaluate, this opportunity than an EA Funds member (e.g. because this requires a lot of background knowledge on the country). [This is a hypothetical example to illustrate the idea, I don’t want to make a claim that this specifically is likely.]
These points are also explained in more detail in the post on donor lotteries I linked to.
Thanks for pointing out that the donor could still give to EA funds if they win the donor lottery—I forgot about that. So yeah I would agree now that the donor lottery can’t be worse than giving to EA Funds directly.
I guess a question I have is how much time should a donor who wins the donor lottery invest if they win it, and how many hours would be considered more than what an EA fund manager would spend?
Also, I do see that donors could possess idiosyncratic knowledge that fund managers don’t have, or know funding opportunities that fund managers don’t. Thanks for illustrating the example on biosecurity policy work in the Philippines. Unfortunately I don’t think that biosecurity policy work in the Philippines is that effective to work on, given that it’s probably better to do biosecurity policy work in countries with more developed research fields in biotechnology/biosecurity. I haven’t looked into or thought about it that much but those would be my views currently.
That was unclear, sorry. I again meant impact from just the funded charity’s work. As opposed to effects on the motivation or ability to acquire resources of the donor, etc.