I’d like to see a serious re-examination of the evidence underpinning GiveWell’s core recommendations, focusing on
how recent is the evidence?
what are the core results on the primary outcomes of interest?
How much is GiveWell doing add-on analysis/​theorizing to boost those results into something amenable, or do the results speak for themselves?
How reproducible/​open-science-y/​pre-registered/​etc. are the papers under discussion?
Are there any working papers/​in-progress things worth adding to the evidence base?
I did this for one intervention in GiveWell should fund an SMC replication & @Holden Karnofsky did a version of it in Minimal-trust investigations, but I think these investigations are worth doing multiple times over the years from multiple parties. It’s a lot of work though, so I see why it doesn’t get done too often.
I’d like to see a serious re-examination of the evidence underpinning GiveWell’s core recommendations, focusing on
how recent is the evidence?
what are the core results on the primary outcomes of interest?
How much is GiveWell doing add-on analysis/​theorizing to boost those results into something amenable, or do the results speak for themselves?
How reproducible/​open-science-y/​pre-registered/​etc. are the papers under discussion?
Are there any working papers/​in-progress things worth adding to the evidence base?
I did this for one intervention in GiveWell should fund an SMC replication & @Holden Karnofsky did a version of it in Minimal-trust investigations, but I think these investigations are worth doing multiple times over the years from multiple parties. It’s a lot of work though, so I see why it doesn’t get done too often.