It’s awesome that you’ve put this together, as I think this is really valuable information. Honestly, what surprises me most here is how similar all four organizations’ numbers are across most of the items involved.
As you pointed out, however, your use of the highest-possible value for HLI’s value of extending a life by a year definitely undersells how different HLI is from the others. I think it would be better if you explicitly showed both endpoints of the range HLI considers, which includes negative values on the low end. Without that, I worry that readers who were otherwise not highly familiar with HLI’s work would not come away with a correct impression of HLI’s views.
I agree—and I started out trying to list all their approaches, but it very quickly becomes untractable in the table format. I have edited to show the full range, although I’m not sure if it’s more or less helpful than before. Hopefully it does should how counter-intuitive their model can be
Honestly, what surprises me most here is how similar all four organizations’ numbers are across most of the items involved
This was also gratifying for us to see, but it’s probably important to note that our approach incorporates weights from both GiveWell and HLI at different points, so the estimates are not completely independent.
It’s awesome that you’ve put this together, as I think this is really valuable information. Honestly, what surprises me most here is how similar all four organizations’ numbers are across most of the items involved.
As you pointed out, however, your use of the highest-possible value for HLI’s value of extending a life by a year definitely undersells how different HLI is from the others. I think it would be better if you explicitly showed both endpoints of the range HLI considers, which includes negative values on the low end. Without that, I worry that readers who were otherwise not highly familiar with HLI’s work would not come away with a correct impression of HLI’s views.
I agree—and I started out trying to list all their approaches, but it very quickly becomes untractable in the table format. I have edited to show the full range, although I’m not sure if it’s more or less helpful than before. Hopefully it does should how counter-intuitive their model can be
Thanks for the edit! I think that’s helpful
Is this because we argued that it’s plausible that a life can have negative wellbeing?
This was also gratifying for us to see, but it’s probably important to note that our approach incorporates weights from both GiveWell and HLI at different points, so the estimates are not completely independent.