I didnât see the old title, but FWIW I had the same thought as Julian had about the old title about this title when I saw it just now:
Donât just give well, give WELLBYs: HLIâs 2022 charity recommendation
âgive wellâ clearly seemed like a reference to GiveWell to me. It sounded like youâre saying âDonât give according to GiveWellâs recommendations; give according to HLIâs recommendations made on the basis of maximizing WELLBYs.â
Itâs perfectly fine to say this of course, but I think itâs a bit off-putting to say it subtly like that rather than directly. Also it seems strange to make that statement the title, since the post doesnât seem to be centrally about that claim.
I personally think itâs a good enough pun to be worth the cost (and I do think there is still a real, albeit I think somewhat minor, cost paid in it feeling a bit adversarial). Iâve laughed about it multiple times today as I revisited the EA Forum frontpage, and it lightened up my day a bit in these somewhat stressful times.
Fair enough. I agree that the current title feeling a bit adversarial is only a minor cost.
Iâve realized that my main reason for not liking the title is that the post doesnât address my concerns about the WELLBY approach, so I donât feel like the post justifies the titleâs recommendation to âgive WELLBYsâ rather than âgive wellâ (whether that means GiveWell or give well on some other basis).
On a meta-note, Iâm reluctant to down-vote Julianâs top comment (I certainly wouldnât want it to have negative karma), but it is a bit annoying that the (now-lengthy) top comment thread is about the title rather than the actual post. I suppose Iâm mostly to blame for that by replying with an additional comment (now two) to the thread, but I also donât want to be discouraged from adding my thoughts just by the fact that the comment thread is highly upvoted and thus prominently visible. (I strong-agreement-voted Julianâs comment, and refrained from regular karma voting on it.)
I didnât see the old title, but FWIW I had the same thought as Julian had about the old title about this title when I saw it just now:
âgive wellâ clearly seemed like a reference to GiveWell to me. It sounded like youâre saying âDonât give according to GiveWellâs recommendations; give according to HLIâs recommendations made on the basis of maximizing WELLBYs.â
Itâs perfectly fine to say this of course, but I think itâs a bit off-putting to say it subtly like that rather than directly. Also it seems strange to make that statement the title, since the post doesnât seem to be centrally about that claim.
I personally think itâs a good enough pun to be worth the cost (and I do think there is still a real, albeit I think somewhat minor, cost paid in it feeling a bit adversarial). Iâve laughed about it multiple times today as I revisited the EA Forum frontpage, and it lightened up my day a bit in these somewhat stressful times.
Fair enough. I agree that the current title feeling a bit adversarial is only a minor cost.
Iâve realized that my main reason for not liking the title is that the post doesnât address my concerns about the WELLBY approach, so I donât feel like the post justifies the titleâs recommendation to âgive WELLBYsâ rather than âgive wellâ (whether that means GiveWell or give well on some other basis).
On a meta-note, Iâm reluctant to down-vote Julianâs top comment (I certainly wouldnât want it to have negative karma), but it is a bit annoying that the (now-lengthy) top comment thread is about the title rather than the actual post. I suppose Iâm mostly to blame for that by replying with an additional comment (now two) to the thread, but I also donât want to be discouraged from adding my thoughts just by the fact that the comment thread is highly upvoted and thus prominently visible. (I strong-agreement-voted Julianâs comment, and refrained from regular karma voting on it.)