Another way to frame this would be in terms of crucial considerations: āa consideration such that if it were taken into account it would overturn the conclusions we would otherwise reach about how we should direct our efforts, or an idea or argument that might possibly reveal the need not just for some minor course adjustment in our practical endeavors but a major change of direction or priority.ā
A quick example: If Alice currently thinks that a 1 percentage point reduction in existential risk is many orders of magnitude more important than a 1 percentage point increase in the average welfare of people in developing nations*, then I think looking at ratings from this sort of system for ideas focused on improving welfare of people in developing nations is not a good use of Aliceās time.
I think sheād use that time better by doing things like:
looking at ratings of ideas focused on reducing existential risk
looking at ideas focused on proxies that seem more connected to reducing existential risk
looking specifically at crucial-consideration-y things like āHow does improving welfare of people in developing nations affect existential risk?ā or āWhat are the strongest arguments for focusing on welfare in developing nations rather than on existential riskā
This wouldnāt be aided much by answers to questions like āHas [idea X] been implemented yet? How costly would it be? What is the evidence that it indeed achieves its stated objective?ā
See also Charity Entrepreneurshipās āsupporting reportsā, which āfocus on meta and cross-cutting issues that affect a large number of ideas and would not get covered by our standard reports. Their goal is to support the consideration of different ideas.ā
*I chose those proxies and numbers fairly randomly.
To be clear: I am not saying that I donāt think your model, or the sort of work thatās sort-of proposed by the model, wouldnāt be valuable. I think it would be valuable. Iām just explaining why I think some portions of the work wonāt be particularly valuable to some portion of EAs. (Just as most of GiveWellās work or FHIās work isnāt particularly valuableāat least on the object levelāto some EAs.)
Another way to frame this would be in terms of crucial considerations: āa consideration such that if it were taken into account it would overturn the conclusions we would otherwise reach about how we should direct our efforts, or an idea or argument that might possibly reveal the need not just for some minor course adjustment in our practical endeavors but a major change of direction or priority.ā
A quick example: If Alice currently thinks that a 1 percentage point reduction in existential risk is many orders of magnitude more important than a 1 percentage point increase in the average welfare of people in developing nations*, then I think looking at ratings from this sort of system for ideas focused on improving welfare of people in developing nations is not a good use of Aliceās time.
I think sheād use that time better by doing things like:
looking at ratings of ideas focused on reducing existential risk
looking at ideas focused on proxies that seem more connected to reducing existential risk
looking specifically at crucial-consideration-y things like āHow does improving welfare of people in developing nations affect existential risk?ā or āWhat are the strongest arguments for focusing on welfare in developing nations rather than on existential riskā
This wouldnāt be aided much by answers to questions like āHas [idea X] been implemented yet? How costly would it be? What is the evidence that it indeed achieves its stated objective?ā
See also Charity Entrepreneurshipās āsupporting reportsā, which āfocus on meta and cross-cutting issues that affect a large number of ideas and would not get covered by our standard reports. Their goal is to support the consideration of different ideas.ā
*I chose those proxies and numbers fairly randomly.
To be clear: I am not saying that I donāt think your model, or the sort of work thatās sort-of proposed by the model, wouldnāt be valuable. I think it would be valuable. Iām just explaining why I think some portions of the work wonāt be particularly valuable to some portion of EAs. (Just as most of GiveWellās work or FHIās work isnāt particularly valuableāat least on the object levelāto some EAs.)
Makes sense, thanks