For what it’s worth, I agree with the broad thesis and I’m guessing that the movement currently undervalues the value of things like external reviews, epistemic spot checks, red teaming, etc.
I do suspect getting highly competent researchers to do this review will be nontrivially difficult, in terms of opportunity costs and not just money.
But you might be able to do something with interested (graduate) students instead; at least most of the errors I’ve historically been able to catch did not feel like they required particularly strong domain expertise.
That said, I think you’re probably underestimating the costs of the review moderately and overestimating the amount of money moved for Founders Pledge’s climate reports by a lot. I don’t think it’s enough to flip the sign of your conclusion however.
For what it’s worth, I agree with the broad thesis and I’m guessing that the movement currently undervalues the value of things like external reviews, epistemic spot checks, red teaming, etc.
I do suspect getting highly competent researchers to do this review will be nontrivially difficult, in terms of opportunity costs and not just money.
But you might be able to do something with interested (graduate) students instead; at least most of the errors I’ve historically been able to catch did not feel like they required particularly strong domain expertise.
That said, I think you’re probably underestimating the costs of the review moderately and overestimating the amount of money moved for Founders Pledge’s climate reports by a lot. I don’t think it’s enough to flip the sign of your conclusion however.