michael_nielsen

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.

If you thought we were plowing money into charities that are only a bit better than average, agree that's unattractive.

but I don't think that the right model-if cost-effectiveness is more power law, lowering bar could make outcomes much worse

The same argument in the investment world would suggest not to invest in funds, but try to pick winners

standard case for diversification in investing has a lot to do with risk aversion, doesn't seem like it applies in charity.

I think a different argument still applies, which is that (at scale) it's a mistake to only allocate money to a few winners.

I think that is true for "the market" but GW moved ~$110M last year, ~$320B to charity in US. We're marginal for magnitudes

I realize that - that's why I've emphasized at scale, and if GW becomes dominant.