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).
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).