You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Mac comments on Open Thread, Apr. 27 - May 3, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 27 April 2015 12:18AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (352)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (352)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Mac 27 April 2015 11:36:16PM *  0 points [-]

GiveWell already has donors that might influence priorities.

Do you have evidence that donors, other than the starting core, have influenced priorities? If so, I would be interested.

I don't think having donors means losing credibility.

I meant to say "Donors influenced priorities". I'll edit to clear up the confusion. It's important, to me at least, that GiveWell's research is as unbiased as possible.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 April 2015 11:56:58PM 0 points [-]

No, but why do you think that those donors is more likely to influence priorities?

It's important, to me at least, that GiveWell's research is as unbiased as possible.

"Unbiased" is a quite complicated word what do you mean with it? I don't see conflicts of interests in this case.

Comment author: Mac 28 April 2015 02:38:12AM 0 points [-]

No, but why do you think that those donors is more likely to influence priorities?

This looks like influence to me...

To date, we haven’t actively sought partnerships along these lines. Kaitlyn and Mike suggested it...

Next,

I don't see conflicts of interests in this case.

Really? For example, if GiveWell determined that the Open Philanthropy Project were a waste of resources, do you think they would simply say, "Well Mr. Krieger, you shouldn't give us that money after all."

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 April 2015 09:55:37AM 0 points [-]

This looks like influence to me... To date, we haven’t actively sought partnerships along these lines. Kaitlyn and Mike suggested it...

I would think that GiveWell talks with his donors and takes idea that it considers good on board. I don't see a problem with doing things that other people suggest.

For example, if GiveWell determined that the Open Philanthropy Project were a waste of resources, do you think they would simply say, "Well Mr. Krieger, you shouldn't give us that money after all."

Do you object in principle to the idea of taking project specific outside funding?

That like saying a researcher who applies to some grant is biased because he has to please the person who give out the grant.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit