I think of GiveWell as being pretty skeptical of the average global health intervention. Curious if you agree, and if you have a sense of how that level of skepticism would play out on animal welfare interventions.
I get the sense that GiveWell would not recommend any animal welfare intervention (nor would they recommend any x-risk or policy intervention). But I don’t think that’s because they think any intervention that doesn’t meet their standards isn’t worth funding—they fund a lot of more speculative interventions thru Open Philanthropy. I think GiveWell wants to be viewed as a reliable source for high-quality charities, so they don’t want to recommend more speculative charities even if the all-things-considered EV is good.
I think of GiveWell as being pretty skeptical of the average global health intervention. Curious if you agree, and if you have a sense of how that level of skepticism would play out on animal welfare interventions.
I get the sense that GiveWell would not recommend any animal welfare intervention (nor would they recommend any x-risk or policy intervention). But I don’t think that’s because they think any intervention that doesn’t meet their standards isn’t worth funding—they fund a lot of more speculative interventions thru Open Philanthropy. I think GiveWell wants to be viewed as a reliable source for high-quality charities, so they don’t want to recommend more speculative charities even if the all-things-considered EV is good.
(I’m just speculating here.)