Agree that this methodology of point estimates can be overconfident in what the top causes are, but Iām not sure if thatās their methodology or if theyāre using expected values where they should. Probably someone from 80k should clarify, if 80k still believes in their ranking enough to think anyone should use it?
This means we need to take more seriously the idea that the true top causes are different to those suggested by 80Kās model.
Also agree with this sentence.
My issue is that the summary claims āprobabilities derived from belief which arenāt based on empirical evidence [...] means that the optimal distribution of career focuses for engaged EAs should be less concentrated amongst a small number of ātopā cause areas.ā This is a claim that we should be less confident than 80kās cause prio.
When someone has a model, you canāt always say we should be less confident than their model without knowing their methodology, even if their model is āprobabilities derived from belief which arenāt based on empirical evidenceā. Otherwise you can build a model where their model is right 80% of the time, and things are different in some random way 20% of the time, and then someone else takes your model and does the same thing, and this continues infinitely until your beliefs are just the uniform distribution over everything. So I maintain that the summary should mention something about using point estimates inappropriately, or missing some kinds of uncertainty; otherwise itās saying something thatās not true in general.
ā80K have a cause prioritisation model with wide confidence intervals around point estimates, but as individual EAs, our personal cause prioritisation models should have wider confidence around point estimates than in 80Kās model.ā
What I meant to communicate is:
ā80K have a cause prioritisation model with wide confidence intervals around point estimates, and individual EAs should 1) pay more attention to the wide confidence intervals in 80Kās model than they are currently and 2) have wide confidence intervals in their personal cause prioritisation model too.ā
Agree that this methodology of point estimates can be overconfident in what the top causes are, but Iām not sure if thatās their methodology or if theyāre using expected values where they should. Probably someone from 80k should clarify, if 80k still believes in their ranking enough to think anyone should use it?
Also agree with this sentence.
My issue is that the summary claims āprobabilities derived from belief which arenāt based on empirical evidence [...] means that the optimal distribution of career focuses for engaged EAs should be less concentrated amongst a small number of ātopā cause areas.ā This is a claim that we should be less confident than 80kās cause prio.
When someone has a model, you canāt always say we should be less confident than their model without knowing their methodology, even if their model is āprobabilities derived from belief which arenāt based on empirical evidenceā. Otherwise you can build a model where their model is right 80% of the time, and things are different in some random way 20% of the time, and then someone else takes your model and does the same thing, and this continues infinitely until your beliefs are just the uniform distribution over everything. So I maintain that the summary should mention something about using point estimates inappropriately, or missing some kinds of uncertainty; otherwise itās saying something thatās not true in general.
I think youāre interpreting my summary as:
ā80K have a cause prioritisation model with wide confidence intervals around point estimates, but as individual EAs, our personal cause prioritisation models should have wider confidence around point estimates than in 80Kās model.ā
What I meant to communicate is:
ā80K have a cause prioritisation model with wide confidence intervals around point estimates, and individual EAs should 1) pay more attention to the wide confidence intervals in 80Kās model than they are currently and 2) have wide confidence intervals in their personal cause prioritisation model too.ā