2 ms·

I agree with you, except that GiveWell is clearly not an example of obsessively performing your own due diligence! It's an example of the very high value of hav

I agree with you, except that GiveWell is clearly not an example of obsessively performing your own due diligence! It's an example of the very high value of having institutions that are highly trustworthy specialists in doing a specialized kind of due diligence, so that people don't need to do it themselves. This is why it's critical to have trusted institutions doing what institutions like the FDA and CDC, and incredibly bad for they themselves or for others to undermine their credibility.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Givewell is incredibly transparent. Imo the proper way to use givewell is to first decide on your definition of good and then read their reports on the different charities. If you just want to minimize death you can use givewell to figure out which charities do that most effectively. If you want to maximize qualys you'll find that givewell's analysis points to different causes. Of course you can use givewell's definition of good and just let them donate to their top charities, but the real value is all the white papers they publish which allow you to make informed decisions about how to maximize your own definition of good.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Well, agree to disagree on "the real value". I think your way of using it is incredibly valuable, but I think the more valuable thing is the ability to trust their recommendations, because that's a lot more scalable. For instance, if they only published the reports, refusing to make any recommendations, and directing people to use them only as a resource for their own research, then their impact would be orders of magnitude lower, because far fewer people would actually do that. But if they only published their recommendations, without all the research and transparency, then they would not have the credibility as a trustworthy specialist to delegate one's research to. Both things are important.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Givewell is incredibly transparent. Imo the proper way to use givewell is to first decide on your definition of good and then read their reports on the different charities. If you just want to minimize death you can use givewell to figure out which charities do that most effectively. If you want to maximize qualys you'll find that givewell's analysis points to different causes. Of course you can use givewell's definition of good and just let them donate to their top charities, but the real value is all the white papers they publish which allow you to make informed decisions about how to maximize your own definition of good.

sanderjd 3y ago
Well, agree to disagree on "the real value". I think your way of using it is incredibly valuable, but I think the more valuable thing is the ability to trust their recommendations, because that's a lot more scalable. For instance, if they only published the reports, refusing to make any recommendations, and directing people to use them only as a resource for their own research, then their impact would be orders of magnitude lower, because far fewer people would actually do that. But if they only published their recommendations, without all the research and transparency, then they would not have the credibility as a trustworthy specialist to delegate one's research to. Both things are important.