Would you consider extending the offer to MIRI, Living Goods or Development Media International (for those unfamiliar: the first being the AI organisation that sponsors this website, the last two being 2 of GiveWell’s standout charities?
GiveWell’s most compelling reason for not including Living Good’s as one of their 4 recommended charities is room for more funding. However, the premise for the lack of room for more funding rested on the assumption that it would be funded by a big donor soon. There is no evidence to suggest this has taken place since GiveWell’s analysis.
The size of Living Goods’ funding gap for the next year is highly uncertain because major funders are considering supporting the program. If Living Goods raises enough funds to scale up the program studied with the RCT, it may allocate additional funds to programs with less of a track record.
I favour living goods since their approach doesn’t disincentivise rational market behaviour and there are methodological issues re: the effectiveness of the 4 recommended GiveWell charities that are described elsewhere.
I favour DMI for complex reasons including the integrity of their frontier scientific methodology which I may elaborate upon at a later stage. They do their work very well but I still have concerns that it may be increasing the survivability of those who neglect somewhat easily researched solutions to everyday problems and therefore sustain unwellbeing in the long term.
Update: I have been doing some thinking about making a bequest, prompted by this offer. So, suddenly the urgency of donating feels less great to me, and dying with savings is suddenly valuable. When I think about how to maximise my savings, one thing that comes to mind is maximising my inheritence. My sister rents a house from my parents below market price. I feel like this is unjust, since it will take away from the some of my inheritence. She is a wealthy quant and just ‘doesn’t have the time or need’ to change arrangements. I feel bad about this, like I’m being robbed or they are favouring her. At the same time, I’m not entitled to their money. This is stressful!
Would you consider extending the offer to MIRI, Living Goods or Development Media International (for those unfamiliar: the first being the AI organisation that sponsors this website, the last two being 2 of GiveWell’s standout charities?
At the moment we would prefer to not extend the offer to MIRI. This is because we think it’s valuable to keep an organization fairly focused on doing a few things well and fundraising for MIRI currently falls out of Charity Science’s scope. It’s also legally dubious whether or not Charity Science can use its resources to influence money to groups not involved in alleviating poverty.
We are more than happy to extend the offer to Living Goods or Development Media International. We do recommend bequests to GiveWell’s top charities though because GiveWell’s fluidity and flexibility will allow their recommendations to change over time, which means that they’re an excellent choice to leave a bequest to. This is in contrast to another charity that may be effective now but may not be 30 years from now.
Great offer.
Would you consider extending the offer to MIRI, Living Goods or Development Media International (for those unfamiliar: the first being the AI organisation that sponsors this website, the last two being 2 of GiveWell’s standout charities?
Comprehensive, evidence-based toolkits for policy makers and planners on Improving Educational Quality through Interactive Radio Instruction exists. Development Media International is one of GiveWell’s standout organisations and implements radio-based behaviour change health education to “save the greatest number of lives in the most cost effective way.
GiveWell’s most compelling reason for not including Living Good’s as one of their 4 recommended charities is room for more funding. However, the premise for the lack of room for more funding rested on the assumption that it would be funded by a big donor soon. There is no evidence to suggest this has taken place since GiveWell’s analysis.
I favour living goods since their approach doesn’t disincentivise rational market behaviour and there are methodological issues re: the effectiveness of the 4 recommended GiveWell charities that are described elsewhere.
I favour DMI for complex reasons including the integrity of their frontier scientific methodology which I may elaborate upon at a later stage. They do their work very well but I still have concerns that it may be increasing the survivability of those who neglect somewhat easily researched solutions to everyday problems and therefore sustain unwellbeing in the long term.
Update: I have been doing some thinking about making a bequest, prompted by this offer. So, suddenly the urgency of donating feels less great to me, and dying with savings is suddenly valuable. When I think about how to maximise my savings, one thing that comes to mind is maximising my inheritence. My sister rents a house from my parents below market price. I feel like this is unjust, since it will take away from the some of my inheritence. She is a wealthy quant and just ‘doesn’t have the time or need’ to change arrangements. I feel bad about this, like I’m being robbed or they are favouring her. At the same time, I’m not entitled to their money. This is stressful!
At the moment we would prefer to not extend the offer to MIRI. This is because we think it’s valuable to keep an organization fairly focused on doing a few things well and fundraising for MIRI currently falls out of Charity Science’s scope. It’s also legally dubious whether or not Charity Science can use its resources to influence money to groups not involved in alleviating poverty.
We are more than happy to extend the offer to Living Goods or Development Media International. We do recommend bequests to GiveWell’s top charities though because GiveWell’s fluidity and flexibility will allow their recommendations to change over time, which means that they’re an excellent choice to leave a bequest to. This is in contrast to another charity that may be effective now but may not be 30 years from now.