Thanks for the context but putting these caveats in the disclaimers doesn’t change how the tool works.
The underlying studies are solid. The problem is the layer on top of them. The scores and weights are AI set guesses on a slider, not field data. Again, that’s most true for the civic engagement, equity and justice buckets, which is where most of Scott’s money goes. The author says himself those buckets get “wide skeptical priors” because no health pathway has credible evidence. That isn’t a real effect adjusted for uncertainty. It’s a number filling in for missing data. Since those are the biggest buckets, that number is doing a lot of the work behind the headline frontier multiple. The comparison is weakest exactly where most of her money sits.
That’s my real concern. The tool takes her hardest to measure work and makes it look like it buys almost nothing, when that low number is a measurement gap, not a fact about the work. A model is only as strong as its weakest layer. For most of this portfolio, that layer is a guess standing in for how funding actually works on the ground, like whether a local coalition can absorb a sudden influx of cash, or the fact that structural change doesn’t run in a straight line to a health outcome.
Flagging that in the fine print is good practice, but it doesn’t fix it. The calculator is still running precise maths on top of guesses.
That’s a fair point on how these models work in general and I really don’t want to diminish Max’s efforts here. Building a tool like this takes serious effort. I certainly could not do it and I genuinely appreciate the craft that went into it!
I see where you’re coming from on the sliders, but my worry is more fundamental. Adjusting a slider lets us tweak the numbers, but it doesn’t change what the model is built to look for. When the baseline assumes that hard-to-measure community work has almost no value unless it’s backed by a trial, a slider just lets us pick a different guess. I’ll say it again that it can’t capture how real-world, long-term change actually happens on the ground.
But technical debate aside, the most disheartening part of all this has been seeing how the post is being used online. It’s been really disappointing to watch the wave of harsh backlash and inflammatory comments directed at MacKenzie Scott off the back of this.
She is giving away huge amounts of money with real trust, flexibility, and respect for local leaders doing good, complex work. When that kind of thoughtful giving gets turned into a single headline about “inefficiency,” it opens the door for a lot of unfair criticism directed at someone who is genuinely trying to tackle important issues.
That’s really why those like me on the field push back. Numbers don’t live in a vacuum and when complex human work gets reduced to a simple health calculator, the real-world conversation takes a hit.