Because I think Open Phil evaluates higher expectation, higher risk styles of charity, and I don’t think risk-aversion makes sense for altruism.
Also more philosphically, I don’t think we have good reasons to expect that directly measurable interventions in global health are likely to be the highest-leverage ways to make a safe and flourishing humanity in the long run, which is what seems more important. It seems like charities funded or recommended by Open Phil have a better chance at improving long-run flourishing.
Hi Ryan, Can you clarify why you would rather see a charity get recommended by the Open Philanthropy Project than by GiveWell classic?
Because I think Open Phil evaluates higher expectation, higher risk styles of charity, and I don’t think risk-aversion makes sense for altruism.
Also more philosphically, I don’t think we have good reasons to expect that directly measurable interventions in global health are likely to be the highest-leverage ways to make a safe and flourishing humanity in the long run, which is what seems more important. It seems like charities funded or recommended by Open Phil have a better chance at improving long-run flourishing.