How much we give is primarily a question of timing (this year or a later year?) rather than a question of game theory.
Conversation
By "game theory" I mean GiveWell/OpenPhil making other donors give money by splitting gaps, which is explicitly in blog.givewell.org/2015/11/25/goo.
If this is a question of timing, it's surprising that GiveWell gives this timing recommendation to OpenPhil, but not to other donors.
1
4
Pls see the note at the top of that post which clarifies it quickly became out of date.
Really, pacing is ultimately the donor's decision, inc. in the case of Good Ventures. Concretely, when I see others give to EA, I want to give faster bc I believe there will be more $s later.
1
14
Nothing makes me more conservative than thinking people believe Good Ventures money "covers" all of EA. That is the world in which we must be extremely judicious, bc the opportunities are vast.
2
18
By "conservative" you mean conservative about spending money?
The last sentence makes me unsure I'm reading this right. If people correctly believer that Good Ventures money covers all of EA, wouldn't that mean that there are fewer opportunities out there?
1
3
It makes me more conservative about GV granting money yes. I do *not* think it is a correct belief that Good Ventures money covers all of EA - it is not nearly enough money. If people assume it is, we must be more careful so that it can be allocated to the best opps across time.
1
19
That seems backwards - credibly exhausting your surplus wealth ought to motivate others to step in at least on whichever programs have visibly high-value results.
3
7
"Covers all of EA" doesn't make sense as a literal claim, it has to be some kind of posturing coming from a perspective that's trying to avoid moral liability, not do the most good.
3
2
To me, the more obvious question is: if people are genuinely misinformed into thinking your spending covers all of EA (as opposed to doing motivated reasoning to donate less), couldn't you solve that by informing them?
1
7
I have tried. I cannot convince my own friends with hours of convos. I will keep trying.
2
29
You can’t quantify Y without identifying every possible project. But to prove it is bigger than X I would point out more money today goes to global health and wellbeing *per year*, just from wealthy countries to LMICs, than X
2
6
right, I agree, you want rough sketches of the order of magnitude that "all of EA" could/should be, not enumerations of every opportunity.
1
2
Show replies




