Different ways of calculating impact make sense in different contexts. What I want to say is that the way Singer, MacAskill, GiveWell are doing it (i) is the one you should be using in deciding whether/where to donate (at the very least assuming you aren’t in some special collective action problem, etc.) and (ii) one that is totally fine by ordinary standards of speech—it isn’t deceptive, misleading, excessively imprecise, etc. Maybe we agree.
Yes I think we agree, but I also think that it’s not a crux of the argument.
As Neel Nanda noted, whatever vaguely reasonable method you use to calculate impact will result in attributing a lot of impact to life-saving interventions.
Different ways of calculating impact make sense in different contexts. What I want to say is that the way Singer, MacAskill, GiveWell are doing it (i) is the one you should be using in deciding whether/where to donate (at the very least assuming you aren’t in some special collective action problem, etc.) and (ii) one that is totally fine by ordinary standards of speech—it isn’t deceptive, misleading, excessively imprecise, etc. Maybe we agree.
Yes I think we agree, but I also think that it’s not a crux of the argument.
As Neel Nanda noted, whatever vaguely reasonable method you use to calculate impact will result in attributing a lot of impact to life-saving interventions.