Yeah, my conclusions here definitely overlap with the cluelessness stuff. Here I’m thinking specifically about cost-effectiveness.
My main takeaway so far: cost-effect estimates should be weighted less & theoretical models of change should be weighted more when deciding what interventions have the most impact.
I basically agree with that post, though GiveWell cost-effectiveness is about comparing different interventions within the domain of improving global health & development in the next 20-50 years.
As far as I know, GiveWell hasn’t used cost-effectiveness analysis to determine that global health & development is a domain worth focusing on (perhaps they did some of this early on, before far-future considerations were salient).
The complication I’m pointing at arises when cost-effectiveness is used to compare across very different domains.
Yeah, my conclusions here definitely overlap with the cluelessness stuff. Here I’m thinking specifically about cost-effectiveness.
My main takeaway so far: cost-effect estimates should be weighted less & theoretical models of change should be weighted more when deciding what interventions have the most impact.
Do you think you’re in significant disagreement with this Givewell blog post?
I basically agree with that post, though GiveWell cost-effectiveness is about comparing different interventions within the domain of improving global health & development in the next 20-50 years.
As far as I know, GiveWell hasn’t used cost-effectiveness analysis to determine that global health & development is a domain worth focusing on (perhaps they did some of this early on, before far-future considerations were salient).
The complication I’m pointing at arises when cost-effectiveness is used to compare across very different domains.