I sometimes see people claim that EA research tends to be low-quality or "not taken seriously" by scholars in relevant fields.
There are cases where this clearly isn't true (e.g. AI alignment questions seem to have at least split the scholarly community, with a lot of people on both sites).
But I worry that, as a non-scientist, I'm living in a bubble where I don't see strong critique of GiveWell's methodology, FHI's policy papers, etc.
Does anyone have good examples of respected* scholars who have reviewed EA research and either praised it highly or found it lackluster?
*I'm using this word to mean a combination of "regarded highly within their field" and "regarded reasonably well by EAs who care about their field"; if you're not sure whether someone counts, please share the example anyway!
Specifically, I'm looking for reviews of EA research that doesn't go through peer-reviewed research channels, or that gets published in very obscure journals that separate it from being "mainstream" within its field. Examples include:
- Eric Drexler's Comprehensive AI Services model
- Wild animal suffering (especially attempts to estimate its magnitude or compare it to human suffering on a moral basis)
- GiveWell's cost-effectiveness models
- X-risk policy work from FHI, CSER, or other longtermist research orgs
- Recent EA discussion of COVID-19
An example of feedback that fits what I'm looking for:
- Judea Pearl, a renowned computer scientist, reviewing Stuart Russell's Human Compatible:
- "Human Compatible made me a convert to Russell's concerns with our ability to control our upcoming creation -- super-intelligent machines. Unlike outside alarmists and futurists, Russell is a leading authority on AI. His new book will educate the public about AI more than any book I can think of, and is a delightful and uplifting read."