What does “Hits-based Giving” look like for animal advocacy?
Should we be focusing more on “work that is more than 90% likely to fail, as long as the overall expected value is high enough?” [1]
If “effectively all the returns are concentrated in a few big winners, and … the best ideas look initially like bad ideas” [2], then how can ACE use evidence in an “epistemically permissive” [3] way to find those big winners?
What does “Hits-based Giving” look like for animal advocacy?
Should we be focusing more on “work that is more than 90% likely to fail, as long as the overall expected value is high enough?” [1]
If “effectively all the returns are concentrated in a few big winners, and … the best ideas look initially like bad ideas” [2], then how can ACE use evidence in an “epistemically permissive” [3] way to find those big winners?
[1] https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/hits-based-giving
[2] http://paulgraham.com/swan.html
[3] https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsE5t6qhGC65fEpzN/growth-and-the-case-against-randomista-development#9B2DWc49MRcYYf7j4
Hi Matt! Thanks for this question. I answered it in the Q&A video recording.