I notice that most charities aren’t cost effective, but if I decide to do better by making a super cost-effective charity I shouldn’t expect to be more successful than the other charities.
This seems wrong to me. I think you should expect to be more cost-effective, but you should also expect to get much less funding than the average charity (all else equal), which might still make the total impact you have larger.
Or to phrase it in Eliezer’s jargon: The market of charities is exploitable in respect to cost-effectiveness, but inexploitable in respect to funding. And ultimately you care about cost-effectiveness * funding.
This seems wrong to me. I think you should expect to be more cost-effective, but you should also expect to get much less funding than the average charity (all else equal), which might still make the total impact you have larger.
Or to phrase it in Eliezer’s jargon: The market of charities is exploitable in respect to cost-effectiveness, but inexploitable in respect to funding. And ultimately you care about cost-effectiveness * funding.
Yup—I was under-specific about the definition of ‘successful’. Thanks!