There’s effectively a size floor on things GiveWell can afford to look at because of the amount of money they want to move and limited staff time.
My criticism is narrow and specifically about this point.
Yes, there is a size floor. New researchers will pursue smaller projects. But that is an example of diminishing returns to research. The next researcher should pursue projects only slightly smaller than the previous researcher, for the same reason that the previous research pursued large projects.
Thanks for clarifying. I should have been able to figure this out from your original comment. Oops!
If there is opportunity for more research, shouldn’t the answer be for GiveWell to expand or be duplicated?
GiveWell has limited ability to scale even with more money—my sense is that they don’t have a bunch of potential analysts lined up whom they’d be delighted to hire (or try out) if only there were the money for it. This is a feasibility objection to expansion on current margins. However, GiveWell might reallocate resources to this from other things (e.g. outreach) if they had enough money, so if you have other strong reasons to think GiveWell can do better than you can, it might be good to give them money anyway.
On duplication, doing one’s own research is a sort of duplication, at a smaller scale. I suspect that GiveWell is way past the point at which returns to scale diminish.
(Disclosure: I worked at GiveWell in the past. I have no current affiliation with GiveWell. My opinions are my own, an not a representation of their official opinion.)
My criticism is narrow and specifically about this point.
Yes, there is a size floor. New researchers will pursue smaller projects. But that is an example of diminishing returns to research. The next researcher should pursue projects only slightly smaller than the previous researcher, for the same reason that the previous research pursued large projects.
Thanks for clarifying. I should have been able to figure this out from your original comment. Oops!
GiveWell has limited ability to scale even with more money—my sense is that they don’t have a bunch of potential analysts lined up whom they’d be delighted to hire (or try out) if only there were the money for it. This is a feasibility objection to expansion on current margins. However, GiveWell might reallocate resources to this from other things (e.g. outreach) if they had enough money, so if you have other strong reasons to think GiveWell can do better than you can, it might be good to give them money anyway.
On duplication, doing one’s own research is a sort of duplication, at a smaller scale. I suspect that GiveWell is way past the point at which returns to scale diminish.
(Disclosure: I worked at GiveWell in the past. I have no current affiliation with GiveWell. My opinions are my own, an not a representation of their official opinion.)