This seems like evidence for a combination of the second and third possibilities in the trilemma. Either GiveWell should expect to be able to point to empirical evidence of dramatic results soon (if not already), or it should expect to reach substantially diminishing returns, or both.
I agree that there are lots of practical reasons why you can’t just firehose this stuff—that’s part of the diminishing returns story!
I could imagine a scenario that slips in between 2 and 3, like you don’t hit substantially diminishing returns on malaria until the last 1% of incidence, but is there reason to think that’s the case?
I could imagine a scenario that slips in between 2 and 3, like you don’t hit substantially diminishing returns on malaria until the last 1% of incidence, but is there reason to think that’s the case?
I suggest reading about the Gates malaria eradication plans, including the barriers to that which lead Gates to think ITINs alone can’t achieve eradication.
This seems like evidence for a combination of the second and third possibilities in the trilemma. Either GiveWell should expect to be able to point to empirical evidence of dramatic results soon (if not already), or it should expect to reach substantially diminishing returns, or both.
I agree that there are lots of practical reasons why you can’t just firehose this stuff—that’s part of the diminishing returns story!
I could imagine a scenario that slips in between 2 and 3, like you don’t hit substantially diminishing returns on malaria until the last 1% of incidence, but is there reason to think that’s the case?
I suggest reading about the Gates malaria eradication plans, including the barriers to that which lead Gates to think ITINs alone can’t achieve eradication.