Moreover, GiveWell estimate that “GiveWell-directed donations to our recommended charities between 2009 and 2021 will avert over 159,000 deaths” (accounting for all top charities, not just AMF).
If they don’t trust GW, why would they trust your calculation, which also rests on GW’s analysis? Here’s a spreadsheet with GW’s analysis: I think that the 159,000 figure is just them doing a pretty similar BOTEC to yours, but across all of their top charities (and they seem to have a higher figure for total donations to AMF, not sure what’s driving the difference there).
Because in my case the GW analysis is one step further back in the calculation and attached to things that one can more easily grasp.
In your comment, the reader can go “oh GW is an EA thing of course they’d say that”
In mine they have to dispute that nets save 1 in 1000 lives or that nets cost $5 each. While GiveWell is backing up those numbers the concepts are much easier to grasp so the trust to GiveWell is much less.
Now, this is really optimising for the small chance that someone will dispute, but in the case that they do,
Yours “Why should we trust givewell” seems hard to answer
Mine “Why should we beleive that 1000 nets save a life” seems trivial “well do you think that number seems way off .. seems about right to me”
Note to the reader. I think the concept I’m trying to pin down here is worth noting. How well does your argument deal with the reflexive responses of someone who was always going to disagree. Here, without dubious epistemics I railroad them into disagreeing with pretty concrete facts. This is not a trick, AMF just does really clear work—you either have to disagree with the costs or the effectiveness of bednets
Moreover, GiveWell estimate that “GiveWell-directed donations to our recommended charities between 2009 and 2021 will avert over 159,000 deaths” (accounting for all top charities, not just AMF).
This feels a bit insider baseball to me. If someone doesn’t trust GiveWell why will they trust this number.
If they don’t trust GW, why would they trust your calculation, which also rests on GW’s analysis? Here’s a spreadsheet with GW’s analysis: I think that the 159,000 figure is just them doing a pretty similar BOTEC to yours, but across all of their top charities (and they seem to have a higher figure for total donations to AMF, not sure what’s driving the difference there).
Because in my case the GW analysis is one step further back in the calculation and attached to things that one can more easily grasp.
In your comment, the reader can go “oh GW is an EA thing of course they’d say that”
In mine they have to dispute that nets save 1 in 1000 lives or that nets cost $5 each. While GiveWell is backing up those numbers the concepts are much easier to grasp so the trust to GiveWell is much less.
Now, this is really optimising for the small chance that someone will dispute, but in the case that they do,
Yours “Why should we trust givewell” seems hard to answer
Mine “Why should we beleive that 1000 nets save a life” seems trivial “well do you think that number seems way off .. seems about right to me”
Note to the reader. I think the concept I’m trying to pin down here is worth noting. How well does your argument deal with the reflexive responses of someone who was always going to disagree. Here, without dubious epistemics I railroad them into disagreeing with pretty concrete facts. This is not a trick, AMF just does really clear work—you either have to disagree with the costs or the effectiveness of bednets