GiveWell would just update the top list as charities get funded. Doesn't sound like a problem to me; sounds like success.
A question I've long had about @GiveWell. Anyone have any thoughts? cc @ch402 @albrgr @tylercowenpic.twitter.com/Z8NHOtdSuI
-
-
-
That's the point of my remark about marginal impact. Still seems suboptimal, especially as GW grows.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We do take #2 into account to prevent overfunding, e.g. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/12/givewell.html …, and I don't think diffs in #3 are small.
-
To clarify #3: Just saying that if you advertise top charities 1-3, then 3 may end up with far more funds than charity 4
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why not do importance sampling and give according to criteria of GW?
-
Does
@GiveWell supply anything like a probability measure? - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.