Thanks, Joel! Do you also think your estimate that donating to Giving What We Can (GWWC) this year is 13 times as cost-effective as GiveWellās top charities is also 3 times as high as it should be, such that your best guess is that it is 4.33 (= 13ā3) times as cost-effective as GiveWellās top charities (although there is large uncertainty)? Or is the adjustment only supposed to be applicable to CEARCHās CEAs listed here?
Hey Vasco, the adjustment is specific to GiveWell vs us (or indeed, non-GW CEAs), since GiveWell probably is the most rigorous in discounting, while other organizations are less so, for various reasons (mainly timeāthatās true for us, and why we just use a rough 10x GW threshold; and itās true of FP too; Matt Lerner goes into detail here on the tradeoff between drilling down vs spending researcher time finding and supporting more high EV opportunities instead).
Relative to every other organization, I donāt find CEARCH to be systematically overoptimistic in the same way (at least for our deep/āfinal round CEAs).
For our GWWC evaluation, I think the ballpark figure (robustly positive multiplier) probably still holds, but Iām uncertain about the precise figure right now, after seeing some of GWWCās latest data (theyāll release their 2023-24 impact evaluation soon).
Thanks, Joel! Do you also think your estimate that donating to Giving What We Can (GWWC) this year is 13 times as cost-effective as GiveWellās top charities is also 3 times as high as it should be, such that your best guess is that it is 4.33 (= 13ā3) times as cost-effective as GiveWellās top charities (although there is large uncertainty)? Or is the adjustment only supposed to be applicable to CEARCHās CEAs listed here?
Hey Vasco, the adjustment is specific to GiveWell vs us (or indeed, non-GW CEAs), since GiveWell probably is the most rigorous in discounting, while other organizations are less so, for various reasons (mainly timeāthatās true for us, and why we just use a rough 10x GW threshold; and itās true of FP too; Matt Lerner goes into detail here on the tradeoff between drilling down vs spending researcher time finding and supporting more high EV opportunities instead).
Relative to every other organization, I donāt find CEARCH to be systematically overoptimistic in the same way (at least for our deep/āfinal round CEAs).
For our GWWC evaluation, I think the ballpark figure (robustly positive multiplier) probably still holds, but Iām uncertain about the precise figure right now, after seeing some of GWWCās latest data (theyāll release their 2023-24 impact evaluation soon).