This question probably fails the "significant opportunity for progress" test, but it's been bugging me and I'm sure a lot of other people too.
How should somebody go about evaluating the effectiveness of organizations working to address global catastrophic risks? I can imagine measuring outputs that you think will help reduce GCRs, but how do you decide what you should be measuring in way that's fair and doesn't involve wild speculation?
This seems to essentially be the question 'how can we best reduce xrisk?' We've got people ready to write about this in the fall, if not earlier. As a teaser, it seems like you can make a pretty good argument for EA movement building dominating most of the other approaches.
How can you best use your time to make a difference?
80,000 Hours now has several people working full time on research, and they would like your questions!
We’re happy to consider any questions about how to effectively make a difference, in whatever sphere of your life – volunteering, career or donations. These questions could be at the conceptual or ethical level, or they could concern nitty-gritty practicalities.
We’re particularly interested in questions that are not already well addressed by other groups, and where there's significant opportunity for progress.
The most popular questions will receive the attention of our research team, and their findings will feature in our new careers guide.
Either post your questions below, or send them to careers@80000hours.org