Thank you to Alex for writing this piece, which I think is really helpful.
I am a Founder and Director of SoGive. We support donors to achieve more impact, and we influence c£1m per annum, the majority of which is from a very small number of major donors.
In this comment, I will say that I think the thrust of Alex’s concerns are valid and still stand, to my mind. But first:
I want to take my hat off to the guys at Giving Green.
My first tentative forays into getting SoGive going were as early as 2015 and the official start date was 2017, so it’s taken a long time to get to where we are. By contrast Giving Green has achieved a much higher profile than we have, and they’ve achieved it quickly. I would also say that Giving Green’s analytical capabilities are ahead of where we were in 2016. Furthermore, the team is still only working on Giving Green in their spare time, so their progress is impressive.
While achieving traction quickly is great, I question whether Giving Green has achieved their traction too quickly.
For the first several years of our existence, SoGive’s recommendations were solely borrowed from other better-resourced organisations like GiveWell, and we’re only now in the process of updating our website to reflect our own analysis.
And of course just because SoGive is doing things one way, it doesn’t mean that that way is right. But there are reasons for our cautious approach.
I believe it is premature for Giving Green to put equal emphasis on recommendations where there is an EA consensus (like CATF) and recommendations where Giving Green is going out on a limb (like TSM).
I have had a small number of conversations with the Giving Green team now, and I think they are good guys who could create a good analytical organisation given time.
And on some of the points that Dan made in this thread, I have sympathies with his position. For example, on Climeworks, he made the point that “you are betting on the technology, not the company”. Contra Alex, I think this is a reasonable argument in favour of the claim that one of the Metaculus forecasts is not analytically helpful. (although doesn’t support Dan’s claim that both are irrelevant)
Having said that, the majority of Alex’s concerns still stand, to my mind.
Furthermore, I have read some of the Giving Green analysis, and believe that Alex’s list of concerns would be longer, if only there were time to do a more detailed review.
I’m conscious that reading much of this thread may feel punishing for the Giving Green team. However I really am positive about the long-term potential for this project.
Thank you to Alex for writing this piece, which I think is really helpful.
I am a Founder and Director of SoGive. We support donors to achieve more impact, and we influence c£1m per annum, the majority of which is from a very small number of major donors.
In this comment, I will say that I think the thrust of Alex’s concerns are valid and still stand, to my mind. But first:
I want to take my hat off to the guys at Giving Green.
My first tentative forays into getting SoGive going were as early as 2015 and the official start date was 2017, so it’s taken a long time to get to where we are. By contrast Giving Green has achieved a much higher profile than we have, and they’ve achieved it quickly. I would also say that Giving Green’s analytical capabilities are ahead of where we were in 2016. Furthermore, the team is still only working on Giving Green in their spare time, so their progress is impressive.
While achieving traction quickly is great, I question whether Giving Green has achieved their traction too quickly.
For the first several years of our existence, SoGive’s recommendations were solely borrowed from other better-resourced organisations like GiveWell, and we’re only now in the process of updating our website to reflect our own analysis.
And of course just because SoGive is doing things one way, it doesn’t mean that that way is right. But there are reasons for our cautious approach.
I believe it is premature for Giving Green to put equal emphasis on recommendations where there is an EA consensus (like CATF) and recommendations where Giving Green is going out on a limb (like TSM).
I have had a small number of conversations with the Giving Green team now, and I think they are good guys who could create a good analytical organisation given time.
And on some of the points that Dan made in this thread, I have sympathies with his position. For example, on Climeworks, he made the point that “you are betting on the technology, not the company”. Contra Alex, I think this is a reasonable argument in favour of the claim that one of the Metaculus forecasts is not analytically helpful. (although doesn’t support Dan’s claim that both are irrelevant)
Having said that, the majority of Alex’s concerns still stand, to my mind.
Furthermore, I have read some of the Giving Green analysis, and believe that Alex’s list of concerns would be longer, if only there were time to do a more detailed review.
I’m conscious that reading much of this thread may feel punishing for the Giving Green team. However I really am positive about the long-term potential for this project.