@Larks: The recommendation is not intended to be a full-fledged write-up of the organization’s effectiveness. It’s a quick note of support from an expert in the field. We could debate whether 80K should trust this kind of quick recommendation, but asking that Chloe explores the issue in significantly more details seems unfair given the context.
I think it’s potentially misleading to have chains of reference like this where from the outside it looks like “EA organizations recommend X” and when you get to the bottom of it there’s just one person giving nothing more than a professional opinion (which could be politically biased, as well).
I think it’s potentially misleading to have chains of reference like this where from the outside it looks like “EA organizations recommend X” and when you get to the bottom of it there’s just one person giving nothing more than a professional opinion (which could be politically biased, as well).
Agree with this. It should be clear wherever a recommendation is based on the OpenPhil post that the post is the nature of the recommendation. It should also be clear how seriously we ought to take the post.
I think it’s potentially misleading to have chains of reference like this where from the outside it looks like “EA organizations recommend X” and when you get to the bottom of it there’s just one person giving nothing more than a professional opinion (which could be politically biased, as well).
Yeah. We should hold ourselves to higher epistemic standards than “we were able to find a single expert who believed this”.
Agree with this. It should be clear wherever a recommendation is based on the OpenPhil post that the post is the nature of the recommendation. It should also be clear how seriously we ought to take the post.