Those are all great questions. i think with option 2 i wouldn't assume it's not cost effective, its often just that we don't know.  I for one would be surprised if there weren't really cost effective places to donate in Sudan, to just that it's hard to know which ones.

With acute crisis as well i think there is often an assumption that they are getting relatively well funded anyway, but like you say that might not be the case any more. 

i think if you made a decent case for one particular situation that was cost effective and needed funding you night be able to convince folks here. 

A lot of what @Open Philanthropy do in GHD is pretty high risk stuff. Risk tolerant GHD donors could do worse than look at what they are funding and maybe get on the bandwagon.

i think f to ug as litu isn't discussed so much here because it isn't broadly popular on the forum, so people can be dissuaded from bringing it up. I've definitely been dissuaded after bringing it up as could of times. Any hint of frugality suggestion gets more disagree than agree votes and is unlikely to get high karma.

before i strong upvoted for this very reasonable and balanced post, it had 10 votes for 16 karma. I don't really see much which warrants down voting here even if you disagree with the argument.

completely agree just give @Peter Wildeford they money right now. Every minute we delay is lost expected value...

picking villains comes at some risk to truth seeing sure, but Sam Altman is a pretty slam dunk villain. 

1. breaks down the non profit purpose of openAI
2. creeps onto Scarlett Johansson in a sickening way
3. first states me wants AI regulation then spends 10s of millions lobbying against it. 

I think Sam Altman can remain an ideal villain even if Open AI does end up being good for the world - that wouldn't discredit the movement. The guy has so obviously proved his evilness through actions plain for the world to see and in ways understandable to all different types of people.

As i sat opposite my wife and our newborn child, chapter 34 of Steinbeck's "East of Eden" absolutely clapped me - especially that no matter what changes us humans impose on our environment, the question remains.

"A child may ask, “What is the world’s story about?” And a grown man or woman may wonder, “What way will the world go? How does it end and, while we’re at it, what’s the story about?”

I believe that there is one story in the world, and only one, that has frightened and inspired us, so that we live in a Pearl White serial of continuing thought and wonder. Humans are caught–in their lives, in their thoughts, in their hungers and ambitions, in their avarice and cruelty, and in their kindness and generosity too–in a net of good and evil. I think this is the only story we have and that it occurs on all levels of feeling and intelligence. Virtue and vice were warp and woof of our first consciousness, and they will be the fabric of our last, and this despite any changes we impose on field and river and mountain, on economy and manners. There is no other story.

A man, after he has brushed off the dust and chips of his life, will have left only the hard, clean questions: Was it good or was it evil? Have I done well–or ill?"

thanks. how do you know the recruiters have been "successful". Open Phil would get lots of incredibly capable applicants for every job, how can you know the counterfactual effect vs. a more experienced recruiter? 

Can you maybe describe why you think experience wasn't important for this job? I know EA orgs do value experience less than others....

"Most of our team had ~no previous recruiting experience before joining the team"

absolutely love this perspective and i will definitely use a version of it in future explanations. thanks a lot!

hey Lucas i think you are often right, although there can be issues with dependency created too. i think factoring in post- program externalities is tricky but definitely worth thinking about qualitatively at the very least

Great comment and welcome to the forum! looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts :). 

Only one small comment which may help understanding @Vasco Grilo🔸 can say if I'm representing him incorrectly. I agree that the uncertainty is so high here that it doesn't make sense to make strong practical recommendations. Vasco though is a mathematical utilitarian in a pretty pure form, so he's seemingly happy to make strong recommendations where there's little evidence and probabilities are close to 50/50. he'll then even change those recommendations immediately after doing some more calculations. I don't really understand how this can work in practice as communities of EA doers obviously can't switch from advocating eating less meat to advocating huge farms on the basis of an extremely uncertain BOTEc. I've made a similar point to you on as few of his posts in the past.