was asking for randomized control trials (or other methods) to demonstrate effectiveness really shockingly revolutionary

EA didn’t invent RCTs, or even popularize them within the social sciences, but their introduction was indeed a major change in thinking. Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer won the Nobel prize in economics largely for demonstrating the experimental approach to the study of development.

Speaking for myself, the main reason I don't get involved in AI stuff is because I feel clueless about what the correct action might be (and how valuable it might be, in expectation). I think there is a pretty strong argument that EA involvement in AI risk has made things worse, not better, and I wouldn't want to make things even worse.

What country are you in? That will make a big difference as to the answer.

According to ZeroGPT, this comment was 70% AI-generated.

Is it possible we’re talking to past each other? “Institutional reforms” isn’t something a donor can spend money or donate to. But EA global health efforts are open to working on policy change; an example is the Lead Exposure Elimination Project.

I still feel that you haven’t really answered the question, what do you think GiveWell should recommend, which they currently aren’t?

Establishing a new charity is one thing, but I haven’t seen you propose a charitable program or intervention yet?

That doesn’t sound like a charity or charitable program to me?

I’m not sure I understood your point. What charities or programs do you think GiveWell should be funding, but aren’t, that are supported by “existing literature in institutional development economics”?

Extinction Rebellion is named after the Anthropocene Extinction, I don’t think they are claiming that climate change alone would lead to human extinction.

Thanks for this review.

I learned something about myself by reading Strangers Drowning, and I would encourage other struggling do-gooders to read this book too.