Not deeply believing in technological progress (e.g. prioritizing bed nets over vaccines).
I think this is wrong about the history.
I was recently watched this Q&A with Holden in 2013. The picture I got is that GiveWell was focusing on “proven interventions” (e.g. bednets) over “speculative interventions” (e.g. biomedical research), because proven interventions were easier to evaluate.[1] He says he thinks speculative/high-risk stuff is probably better, and GiveWell Labs (i.e. Open Philanthropy, i.e. Coefficient Giving) was the pivot toward finding those opportunities.
Supporting quotations
“We really focused on what I’d call traditional GiveWell, which is looking for charities that are proven and cost effective and scalable… That’s why we picked it, is because we thought we’d be able to get somewhere on that.”
“We kind of bit off this chunk at the beginning of proven effective scalable… that was because it had a shorter feedback loop. Do this analysis, people would check the analysis… we would learn.”
“Proven can be easy to see, it also does tend to attract money from other funders… It allows a level of accountability that you don’t get with other things, it allows a level of honesty and objectivity and transparency you don’t get with other things.”
“You get much better information when you’re taken more seriously, and you’re taken more seriously when there’s more money behind you.”
“I feel like by running an organization and by operating within that framework, I’ve just gotten so much better… knowing what’s going to be accomplishable, knowing what sort of person to listen to.”
“We don’t believe, and didn’t necessarily — didn’t really ever believe — that this kind of charity is the only way to have a positive impact or the best way to have a positive impact.”
“I do think that by taking away the restrictions, I believe we’re going to find much better giving opportunities… Conventional wisdom in philanthropy is that speculative and risky is where all the action is.”
“The ROI on medical research is probably really good… Aging is one of the things that I would look at as being promising.”
Fun fact: Holden mentions that his “informal scientific adviser” for exploring biomedical research as a cause area ia a biology postdoc at Stanford called Dario Amodei.
I think this is wrong about the history.
I was recently watched this Q&A with Holden in 2013. The picture I got is that GiveWell was focusing on “proven interventions” (e.g. bednets) over “speculative interventions” (e.g. biomedical research), because proven interventions were easier to evaluate.[1] He says he thinks speculative/high-risk stuff is probably better, and GiveWell Labs (i.e. Open Philanthropy, i.e. Coefficient Giving) was the pivot toward finding those opportunities.
Supporting quotations
“We really focused on what I’d call traditional GiveWell, which is looking for charities that are proven and cost effective and scalable… That’s why we picked it, is because we thought we’d be able to get somewhere on that.”
“We kind of bit off this chunk at the beginning of proven effective scalable… that was because it had a shorter feedback loop. Do this analysis, people would check the analysis… we would learn.”
“Proven can be easy to see, it also does tend to attract money from other funders… It allows a level of accountability that you don’t get with other things, it allows a level of honesty and objectivity and transparency you don’t get with other things.”
“You get much better information when you’re taken more seriously, and you’re taken more seriously when there’s more money behind you.”
“I feel like by running an organization and by operating within that framework, I’ve just gotten so much better… knowing what’s going to be accomplishable, knowing what sort of person to listen to.”
“We don’t believe, and didn’t necessarily — didn’t really ever believe — that this kind of charity is the only way to have a positive impact or the best way to have a positive impact.”
“I do think that by taking away the restrictions, I believe we’re going to find much better giving opportunities… Conventional wisdom in philanthropy is that speculative and risky is where all the action is.”
“The ROI on medical research is probably really good… Aging is one of the things that I would look at as being promising.”
Fun fact: Holden mentions that his “informal scientific adviser” for exploring biomedical research as a cause area ia a biology postdoc at Stanford called Dario Amodei.