Giving What We Can is about to hit 10,000 pledgers. (9935 at the time of writing)
If youâre on the fence and wanna be in the 4 digit club, consider very carefully whether you should make the pledge! An important reminder that Earning to Give is a valid way to engage with EA.
How robust is the funding and quality of the data sources, are they at risk in the near future?
might be good reading to refer to previous contexts
https://ââen.m.wikipedia.org/ââwiki/ââScrupulosity
haha I was hoping to provoke some discussion on the huge difference I found.
Otherwise, an email to Wren is free to write.
How much time/âmoney were spent on these initiatives would you estimate as a percentage?
Is this due to more recent funding constraints?
Cool topic.
I think âI could use this time more effectively to help other peopleâ. And then I donât!
This is the key one to meditate on.
For me at least signing the giving pledge was a year of internalising that I have these values and I must eat them. Otherwise these arenât my values after all. Likewise for the standards of being a good friend, father, flutist etc.
Fortunately, GiveWell has agreed for me to post their response to my post on Independent Evaluation for Reputation; you can find it at the end of the post.
Reaping the benefits of AGI later is pretty insignificant in my opinion. If we get aligned AGI utopia, we will have utopia for millions of years. Acceleration by a few years if negligible if it increase p(doom) by >1%.
This is not true depending on what you think AGI utopia will look like. Thereâs some math outlined in What We Owe the Future about this dilemma i.e. area under the curve of these hypothetical AGI utility functions.
Getting utopia 1 year faster creates a 2x better universe. (hypothetically)
I hope so! Apparently the concept was received well with the team.
GiveWellâs Carley Moor from their philantrophic outreach team contacted me and we had a conversation a few weeks ago which prompted this post.
Among other things I asked about independent verification there. The short answer seems to be no independent verification with the caveat that they adjust. The spreadsheets I linked were sourced from her.
They do fund at least one meta charity that help improve monitoring & evaluation at these charities.
I asked her to either post her response email here or let me post it verbatim and am awaiting to hear from her next week. Being cautious lest I misrepresent them.
Transparency is only a means for reputation. The world is built on trust and faith in the systems and EA is no different.
I believe more people would be alarmed by the lack of independent vetting than the nominal cost effective numbers being inaccurate themself. It feels like there are perverse incentives at play.
Appreciate the feedback, although can you elaborate on what you mean by impact data and progamattic data?
I agree I could have made a better case on the reputation part.
This is what I meant.
Prompted largely by the fall in EA credibility in recent years. And also being unsatisfied with GiveWellâs lack of independent verification of the charities they recommend.
Here is a lightly edited AI generated slop version:
âReputation hardeningâ involves creating more resilient reputations.
Recent events have shown how reputation damage to one EA entity can affect the entire movementâs credibility and therefore funding and influence. While GiveWellâs evaluation process is thorough, it largely relies on charity-provided data. I propose they consider implementing independent verification methods.
Mystery evaluators conducting unannounced site visits
Independent surveyors (potentially hiring former charity employees) collecting impact data
Creating funding opportunities for third-party monitoring organizations GiveWell have already been involved in market shaping
These measures could help detect potential issues early and strengthen confidence in effectiveness estimates.
This is a preliminary idea to start discussion. What other verification methods or implementation challenges should we consider?
I see, appreciate the responses
Definitely an assumption of mine: but those with kidney issues would already have to be educated on what foods/âminerals to avoid I had imagined.
Would you happen to know any other subgroups?
Some numbers for emphasis on overconsumption of protein (Iâm far from a nutritionist):
A 170 pound man eating 170g protein. Assuming 2400 calories per day that is 28% of calories as protein.
That is more than the recommended quote above