Thanks so much for sharing that, it adds a lot of context to the conversation.
I really, really hope this post doesn’t act anything like “the last word” on this topic. This post was Nuno doing his best with only a few weeks of research based on publicly-accessible information (which is fairly sparse, and I could understand why). The main thing he was focused on was simple cost-effectiveness estimation of the key parameters, compared to GiveWell top charities, which I agree is a very high bar.
I agree work on this scale really could use dramatically more comprehensive analysis, especially if other funders are likely to continue funding effectiveness-maximizing work here.
One small point: I read this analysis much more as suggesting that “CJR is really tough to make effective compared to top GiveWell charities, upon naive analyses” than anything like “the specific team involved did a poor job”.
Thanks so much for sharing that, it adds a lot of context to the conversation.
I really, really hope this post doesn’t act anything like “the last word” on this topic. This post was Nuno doing his best with only a few weeks of research based on publicly-accessible information (which is fairly sparse, and I could understand why). The main thing he was focused on was simple cost-effectiveness estimation of the key parameters, compared to GiveWell top charities, which I agree is a very high bar.
I agree work on this scale really could use dramatically more comprehensive analysis, especially if other funders are likely to continue funding effectiveness-maximizing work here.
One small point: I read this analysis much more as suggesting that “CJR is really tough to make effective compared to top GiveWell charities, upon naive analyses” than anything like “the specific team involved did a poor job”.