I am interested in determining how risk-neutral EAs are when trying to do the most good. I have looked through the forums and have seen several posts arguing for or discussing investing in riskier/more variable investments with higher EV than alternatives. GiveWell seems to promote very well proven charities, while funds such as the Longtermism fund and Long-Term Future Fund seem aimed at higher variability, high impact investments, and OpenPhilanthropy also seems willing to invest in possible dead-ends with sufficiently positive EV. I am unsure how much, if any, risk discounting these funds employ. I would like to find out if they tend to believe that a 50% chance of 2 QUALYs is just as good as a 100% chance of 1 QUALY, so to speak.
If you know of any relevant information about attitudes towards risk-discounting in EA, or could share your personal stance on risk when deciding between charities, it would be greatly appreciated.
Risk-Discounting in EA
I am interested in determining how risk-neutral EAs are when trying to do the most good. I have looked through the forums and have seen several posts arguing for or discussing investing in riskier/more variable investments with higher EV than alternatives. GiveWell seems to promote very well proven charities, while funds such as the Longtermism fund and Long-Term Future Fund seem aimed at higher variability, high impact investments, and OpenPhilanthropy also seems willing to invest in possible dead-ends with sufficiently positive EV. I am unsure how much, if any, risk discounting these funds employ. I would like to find out if they tend to believe that a 50% chance of 2 QUALYs is just as good as a 100% chance of 1 QUALY, so to speak.
If you know of any relevant information about attitudes towards risk-discounting in EA, or could share your personal stance on risk when deciding between charities, it would be greatly appreciated.