problems like malaria and extreme poverty still exist
I know this isnât the only thing to track here, but itâs worth noting that funding to GiveWell-recommended charities is also increasing fast, both from Open Philanthropy and from other donors. Enough so that last year GiveWell had more money to direct than room for more funding at the charities that meet their bar (which is â8x better than cash transfersâ, though of course money could be donated to things less effective than that). Theyâre aiming to move 1 billion annually by 2025.
True, but GiveWell doesnât expect funding to grow at the same rate as top quality funding opportunities, so that $1bn/âyear is going to need further donors. Unless we believe GiveWellâs top programmes/âcharities will never have a funding shortfall again, the point about where EA prioritises its funding still seems relevant.
Donating to AMF still seems like a good benchmark for cost effectiveness. Unlike George, my instinct is that e.g. a team retreat for an EA Group is likely to produce considerably less impact than spending the money on bednets or other GiveWell top charities.
In the spirit of trying to really engage with the question and figure out ground truth, maybe itâs worth making a quick CBA or guesstimate model based on your general views for âUnlike George, my instinct is that e.g. a team retreat for an EA Group is likely to produce considerably less impact than spending the money on bednets or other GiveWell top charitiesâ and then we can debate specifics and maybe come to better heuristics about this kind of thing. Iâd be excited to see what numbers your intuition puts on things.
I know this isnât the only thing to track here, but itâs worth noting that funding to GiveWell-recommended charities is also increasing fast, both from Open Philanthropy and from other donors. Enough so that last year GiveWell had more money to direct than room for more funding at the charities that meet their bar (which is â8x better than cash transfersâ, though of course money could be donated to things less effective than that). Theyâre aiming to move 1 billion annually by 2025.
True, but GiveWell doesnât expect funding to grow at the same rate as top quality funding opportunities, so that $1bn/âyear is going to need further donors. Unless we believe GiveWellâs top programmes/âcharities will never have a funding shortfall again, the point about where EA prioritises its funding still seems relevant.
Donating to AMF still seems like a good benchmark for cost effectiveness. Unlike George, my instinct is that e.g. a team retreat for an EA Group is likely to produce considerably less impact than spending the money on bednets or other GiveWell top charities.
In the spirit of trying to really engage with the question and figure out ground truth, maybe itâs worth making a quick CBA or guesstimate model based on your general views for âUnlike George, my instinct is that e.g. a team retreat for an EA Group is likely to produce considerably less impact than spending the money on bednets or other GiveWell top charitiesâ and then we can debate specifics and maybe come to better heuristics about this kind of thing. Iâd be excited to see what numbers your intuition puts on things.
Completely agree. I will write something about this tomorrow