I don’t think GiveWell making SI its top rated charity would be in SI’s interests.
This seems like a good point and perhaps would have been a good reason for SI to not have approached GiveWell in the first place. At this point though, GiveWell is not only refusing to make SI a top rated charity, but actively recommending people to “withhold” funds from SI, which as far as I can tell, it almost never does. It’d be a win for SI to just convince GiveWell to put it back on the “neutral” list.
Yes. Hmm, reading that discussion shows that they were already thinking about having GiveWell create a separate existential risk category (and you may have gotten the idea there yourself and then forgot the source).
This seems like a good point and perhaps would have been a good reason for SI to not have approached GiveWell in the first place. At this point though, GiveWell is not only refusing to make SI a top rated charity, but actively recommending people to “withhold” funds from SI, which as far as I can tell, it almost never does. It’d be a win for SI to just convince GiveWell to put it back on the “neutral” list.
Agreed. Did SI approach GiveWell?
Yes. Hmm, reading that discussion shows that they were already thinking about having GiveWell create a separate existential risk category (and you may have gotten the idea there yourself and then forgot the source).
Indeed.