I think it could be bad if it relies too much on a particular worldview for its conclusions, which causes people to unnecessarily anchor on it. Seems like it could also be bad from a certain perspective if you think that it could lead to preferred treatment for longtermist causes which are easier to evaluate (eg. climate change relative to AI safety).
And an evaluator may be useful even without explicitly ranking/recommending certain charities, by providing semi-objective information not only for donors, but also collaborators, prospective employees, and as a feedback loop to the orgs
Feels like this question is running throughout the answers:
Should there be an evaluator for longtermist projects?
Agree vote: Yes
Disagree vote: No
Probably depends on the cost and counterfactual, right? I doubt many people will think having a longtermist evaluator is bad if it’s free.
I think it could be bad if it relies too much on a particular worldview for its conclusions, which causes people to unnecessarily anchor on it. Seems like it could also be bad from a certain perspective if you think that it could lead to preferred treatment for longtermist causes which are easier to evaluate (eg. climate change relative to AI safety).
And an evaluator may be useful even without explicitly ranking/recommending certain charities, by providing semi-objective information not only for donors, but also collaborators, prospective employees, and as a feedback loop to the orgs
What’s the kind of information you mean by semi-objective? Something comparable to this for instance? Nuclear Threat Initiative’s Global Biological Policy and Programs (founderspledge.com) (particularly the “why we recommend them” section)