Re 1, as Richard says: “Wenar scathingly criticized GiveWell—the most reliable and sophisticated charity evaluators around—for not sufficiently highlighting the rare downsides of their top charities on their front page.8 This is insane: like complaining that vaccine syringes don’t come with skull-and-crossbones stickers vividly representing each person who has previously died from complications. He is effectively complaining that GiveWell refrains from engaging in moral misdirection. It’s extraordinary, and really brings out why this concept matters.”
Re 2: I just don’t think this is true. EAs often note the uncertainty.
3. This is true but constantly talked about EAs. Furthermore, I don’t know what the alternative is supposed to be—just ignore all non-quantifiable harms.
Re 1, as Richard says: “Wenar scathingly criticized GiveWell—the most reliable and sophisticated charity evaluators around—for not sufficiently highlighting the rare downsides of their top charities on their front page.8 This is insane: like complaining that vaccine syringes don’t come with skull-and-crossbones stickers vividly representing each person who has previously died from complications. He is effectively complaining that GiveWell refrains from engaging in moral misdirection. It’s extraordinary, and really brings out why this concept matters.”
Re 2: I just don’t think this is true. EAs often note the uncertainty.
3. This is true but constantly talked about EAs. Furthermore, I don’t know what the alternative is supposed to be—just ignore all non-quantifiable harms.