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.
That is precisely what I am asking! This post is addressed at 80k, not Chloe. It’s entirely reasonable for random experts to give brief opinions. It is not at all reasonable for 80k to present the brief views of one expert as the views of the movement.
If these groups had a long history of support among EAs, including a substantial amount of publicly available cost-effectiveness analysis, things would be different. Then we could point to Chloe’s paragraph as an example of the reasons people support them. But as it is the paragraph seems to provide the entirety of the evidence 80k has, and in this light it is entirely insufficient.
It is not at all reasonable for 80k to present the brief views of one expert as the views of the movement.
I think we agree: 80K should make the nature of the recommendations more clear. I believe they’ve already made an edit to the post that accomplishes this goal.
That is precisely what I am asking! This post is addressed at 80k, not Chloe. It’s entirely reasonable for random experts to give brief opinions. It is not at all reasonable for 80k to present the brief views of one expert as the views of the movement.
If these groups had a long history of support among EAs, including a substantial amount of publicly available cost-effectiveness analysis, things would be different. Then we could point to Chloe’s paragraph as an example of the reasons people support them. But as it is the paragraph seems to provide the entirety of the evidence 80k has, and in this light it is entirely insufficient.
I think we agree: 80K should make the nature of the recommendations more clear. I believe they’ve already made an edit to the post that accomplishes this goal.
Presumably you now withdraw your objection?