Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by GiveWell
2 min read 6

142

Building effective altruismCause prioritizationGiveWell Change Our Mind ContestCost-effectiveness analysisGiveWellPrizes and contestsCriticism of work in effective altruism
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://blog.givewell.org/2022/09/06/announcing-change-our-mind-contest/

Author: Isabel Arjmand, GiveWell Special Projects Officer

We’re extremely excited to be announcing the Change Our Mind Contest to encourage critiques of our cost-effectiveness analyses that could lead to substantial improvements of our overall allocation of funds. For all the details, see this page.

Cost-effectiveness is the single most important input in our decisions about what programs to recommend, and we believe it’s possible that we’re missing important considerations or making mistakes that lead us to allocate funding suboptimally. We’ve been excited to see people engaging with our cost-effectiveness analyses, and we’d like to inspire more of that engagement.

With that in mind, we’re inviting you to identify potentially important mistakes or weaknesses in our existing cost-effectiveness analyses and tell us about them!

The first-place winning entry will receive $20,000, the runner-up will receive $10,000, and the honorable mention will receive $5,000. We may offer multiple runner-up and honorable mention prizes if the quality of submissions is particularly high. All other entries that meet our criteria will receive a participation prize of $500, capped at a total of 50 participation prizes for the first 50 submissions.

In addition to the monetary prizes, excellent entries may lead to changes in how we allocate millions of dollars of funding, leading to more lives saved or improved.

Entries must be received by October 31, 2022, and the requirements are described in detail on the contest page. We will announce winners by December 15, 2022, and will publish the winning entries online. Work that was submitted to the EA Criticism and Red Teaming contest is eligible as long as it meets the requirements stated on our contest page; authors are also welcome to submit an edited version of work they submitted to that contest, and might want to do so in order to better tailor their work to the prompt on this page. If you're posting your submission here on the EA Forum, please tag it with GiveWell Change Our Mind Contest so Forum readers can easily find all entries published here.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment on this post or email change-our-mind@givewell.org.

We’re running this contest because the recommendation decisions we make are extremely important, and we want to incentivize feedback that will improve our work, thereby enabling us to do more good. We hope you’ll consider participating!

142

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments6


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
MichaelPlant34
0
0

I'm really pleased to see GiveWell is doing this, and particularly that you singled out HLI's critique of GiveWell's deworming CEA as an example of what you'd like to see. 

I am, however, disappointed that the scope of the competition is so narrow and a bit confused by its name.  The contest page says you do want people to re-analyse your existing interventions but that you don't want them to suggest different interventions or make  'purely subjective arguments' - I'm not sure what the latter bit means, but I guess it rules out any fundamental discussions about ethical worldviews or questions of how best to measure ‘good’. On this basis, it seems like you're asking people not to try to change your mind, but rather to check your working.

This strikes me as a lost opportunity. After all, rethinking what matters and what the top interventions are could be where we find the biggest gains.

At the risk of being a noisy, broken record, I, and the team at HLI, have long-advocated measuring impact using self-reports and argued that this could really shake up the priorities (spot the differences between these 2016, 2018 and 2022 posts). Our meta-analyses recently found that treating depression via therapy is about 9x more cost-effective than cash transfers (2021 analysis; 2022 update), we'd previously explored how to compare life-improving to life-saving interventions using the same method and pointed out how various philosophical considerations might really change the picture (2020).

I'm still not really sure what GiveWell thinks of any of this. There's been no public response except that, 9 months ago, GiveWell said they were working on their own reports on group therapy and subjective wellbeing and expected to publish those in 3-6 months. It looks like all this work would fall outside this competition but, if GiveWell were open to changing their mind, this would be one good place to look.

Reply
GiveWell20
0
0

Hi Michael—this is Isabel Arjmand, Special Projects Officer at GiveWell. Thank you for the feedback and for HLI's critique of deworming, which played a role in inspiring this contest!

We designed this contest to incentivize critiques that are relatively straightforward for us to evaluate and particularly likely to change our mind about upcoming allocation decisions. This is our first time running a contest like this, so we wanted to keep the scope manageable. We may run future contests with different or broader prompts.

A bit more color on why we're keeping the contest's scope to our existing cost-effectiveness analyses:

  1. We believe critiques of our existing cost-effectiveness analyses will be relatively straightforward for us to review, as opposed to broader critiques, such as those that suggest we take an entirely different approach to recommending giving opportunities. We anticipate that having this well-defined scope will make it easier for us to compare and give due consideration to all entries with our current research capacity (which we are hoping to expand!).
  2. We're getting ready to make some large decisions about how to allocate funding across the programs we currently support at the end of the year. This contest is designed to solicit the feedback that we think has the greatest potential to improve those upcoming decisions; excellent entries could meaningfully change how we allocate funds, leading to more lives saved or improved. Broader critiques or proposals for wholly new approaches would be unlikely to influence this year’s decisions, given how much vetting we put into our allocations and how little time remains before they are finalized.

Outside of this contest, we welcome feedback on all aspects of our work, and we're glad to receive those at any time via email, as blog comments on our open threads, or here on the EA Forum. 

We appreciate your continued engagement on subjective well-being, particularly the useful feedback you provided on our draft reports explaining why we're not as optimistic about subjective well-being measures and Interpersonal Psychotherapy Groups as you are. We're still planning to publish those reports, but we're behind the timeline we originally laid out. Thanks for your patience with this! 

Reply
Karthik Tadepalli15
0
0

Exciting contest! I'd encourage the creation of a tag for this contest, to help people collect and read through entries that are posted on the Forum.

Reply
GiveWell4
0
0

Thanks, Karthik - good idea, and looks like someone has already done this on our behalf. We'll edit the post to ask people to use the tag.

Reply
david_reinstein6
0
0

Update: I overlooked some substantial discussion here

I'm looking forward to further followup on ...

  • how these entries changed your thinking,
  • whether and how you incorporate the suggestions into your work, and how you decide on this

I guess it's always good when you have a suggestion contest to explain your process for responding to the suggestions.

Reply
GiveWell2
0
0

Hey, David - yes, the section of the post you linked to contains our thinking on possible changes that could result from COM Contest critiques. We are still in the process of figuring out what specific changes we might make to our analyses based on these critiques.

Best, Miranda (GiveWell communications associate)

Reply
More from GiveWell
34
GiveWell is hiring two Program Officers
GiveWell
· · 1m read
0
0
166
Are our Top Charities saving the same lives each year?
GiveWell
· · 40m read
7
7
243
Assessment of Happier Lives Institute’s Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of StrongMinds
GiveWell
· · 27m read
57
57
View more
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
TL;DR In a sentence:  We are shifting our strategic focus to put our proactive effort towards helping people work on safely navigating the transition to a world with AGI, while keeping our existing content up. In more detail: We think it’s plausible that frontier AI companies will develop AGI by 2030. Given the significant risks involved, and the fairly limited amount of work that’s been done to reduce these risks, 80,000 Hours is adopting a new strategic approach to focus our efforts in this area.   During 2025, we are prioritising: 1. Deepening our understanding as an organisation of how to improve the chances that the development of AI goes well 2. Communicating why and how people can contribute to reducing the risks 3. Connecting our users with impactful roles in this field 4. And fostering an internal culture which helps us to achieve these goals We remain focused on impactful careers, and we plan to keep our existing written and audio content accessible to users. However, we are narrowing our focus as we think that most of the very best ways to have impact with one’s career now involve helping make the transition to a world with AGI go well.   This post goes into more detail on why we’ve updated our strategic direction, how we hope to achieve it, what we think the community implications might be, and answers some potential questions. Why we’re updating our strategic direction Since 2016, we've ranked ‘risks from artificial intelligence’ as our top pressing problem. Whilst we’ve provided research and support on how to work on reducing AI risks since that point (and before!), we’ve put in varying amounts of investment over time and between programmes. We think we should consolidate our effort and focus because:   * We think that AGI by 2030 is plausible — and this is much sooner than most of us would have predicted 5 years ago. This is far from guaranteed, but we think the view is compelling based on analysis of the current flow of inputs into AI
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
50
What comes after the Introduction Fellowship? A tool and approach for community organizers
Brooke O'Connell 🔸
· · 5m read
9
9
37
Announcing the Compassionate Future Summit 2025
Ruth_Seleo
· · 1m read
0
0
35
AIS Netherlands is looking for a Founding Executive Director (EOI form)
7 authors
· · 5m read
3
3
View more