I think you attribute an overly strong position to the highly skeptical EAs in post 2, as discussed in my longer comment on this. To illustrate this briefly, I’d distinguish between two positions:
(1) We should never fund activities which are [much?] more speculative than GiveWell recommendations.
(2) We should sometimes fund activities which are [much?] more speculative than GiveWell recommendations, but less often than the average EA would accept.
I think you attribute an overly strong position to the highly skeptical EAs in post 2, as discussed in my longer comment on this. To illustrate this briefly, I’d distinguish between two positions:
(1) We should never fund activities which are [much?] more speculative than GiveWell recommendations.
(2) We should sometimes fund activities which are [much?] more speculative than GiveWell recommendations, but less often than the average EA would accept.
I’d only defend (2), not (1).
Agreed, I would also defend 2, not 1 - good point!