âSeem more normalâ isnât quite what Iâm going for; itâs more about there being value in doing things that are easier to explain, or that are are clearly valuable even from worldviews different from your own. For example, someone choosing to live with roommates so theyâre able to work for a non-profit or donate more is weird, but itâs not hard to explain and peopleâs reaction is much more likely to be âI wouldnât do thatâ than âthatâs not actually goodâ.
Iâd feel differently if I thought we were talking about a large amount of altruistic impact. If you think AI safety research or building pandemic shelters are what most needs doing you shouldnât go do something else just because itâs easier to explain to the average person. But I think the gains from lotteries are pretty low, low enough that when you consider the downside it being more confusing itâs not worth it?
Another place this tradeoff comes up is with salary sacrifice: itâs more legible to donate money, but asking for a reduced salary has more altruistic impact.
I think that (normal charity) vs (lottery) is a clear improvement for a much wider range of worldviews than (normal charity) vs (defer to GiveWell).
I do agree that âdefer to GiveWellâ is easier to explain though. Or slightly more precisely: I think itâs easier to explain what GiveWell does well enough that someone can understand why you might think itâs the best option, but harder to explain what GiveWell does in enough detail that someone can verify for themselves that itâs actually better than their alternatives.
âSeem more normalâ isnât quite what Iâm going for; itâs more about there being value in doing things that are easier to explain, or that are are clearly valuable even from worldviews different from your own. For example, someone choosing to live with roommates so theyâre able to work for a non-profit or donate more is weird, but itâs not hard to explain and peopleâs reaction is much more likely to be âI wouldnât do thatâ than âthatâs not actually goodâ.
Iâd feel differently if I thought we were talking about a large amount of altruistic impact. If you think AI safety research or building pandemic shelters are what most needs doing you shouldnât go do something else just because itâs easier to explain to the average person. But I think the gains from lotteries are pretty low, low enough that when you consider the downside it being more confusing itâs not worth it?
Another place this tradeoff comes up is with salary sacrifice: itâs more legible to donate money, but asking for a reduced salary has more altruistic impact.
I think that (normal charity) vs (lottery) is a clear improvement for a much wider range of worldviews than (normal charity) vs (defer to GiveWell).
I do agree that âdefer to GiveWellâ is easier to explain though. Or slightly more precisely: I think itâs easier to explain what GiveWell does well enough that someone can understand why you might think itâs the best option, but harder to explain what GiveWell does in enough detail that someone can verify for themselves that itâs actually better than their alternatives.