Powder🔸
Posts 2
Comments16
Reputation Hardening
Prompted largely by the fall in EA credibility in recent years. And also being unsatisfied with GiveWell's lack of independent verification of the charities they recommend.
Here is a lightly edited AI generated slop version:
Reputation Hardening: Should GiveWell Verify Charity Data Independently?
"Reputation hardening" involves creating more resilient reputations.
Recent events have shown how reputation damage to one EA entity can affect the entire movement's credibility and therefore funding and influence. While GiveWell's evaluation process is thorough, it largely relies on charity-provided data. I propose they consider implementing independent verification methods.
Applying to GiveWell/GHD
- Mystery evaluators conducting unannounced site visits
- Independent surveyors (potentially hiring former charity employees) collecting impact data
- Creating funding opportunities for third-party monitoring organizations GiveWell have already been involved in market shaping
These measures could help detect potential issues early and strengthen confidence in effectiveness estimates.
This is a preliminary idea to start discussion. What other verification methods or implementation challenges should we consider?
Supplements with a U-shaped benefit/harm curve like that and different effects in different subgroups aren't appropriate for universal supplementation.
Is this a like a medical rule of thumb?
I'd just imagine that all the other commonly fortified minerals and vitamins are u-shaped in outcomes. Calcium, iodine causing hyperthyroidism. It'd just depend on the risks.
I did already glance at how likely potassium would harm others and you might find the current information interesting:
https://examine.com/supplements/potassium/#what-are-potassiums-main-drawbacks
The studies suggest that so far it seems quite safe. However there could be a mild (1-2) point increase in blood pressure at the low doses for people who aren't hypertensive, which shouldn't impose much risk.
I misread:
It'd depend on the food in question. The analysis however was under the assumption of it being additive, i.e. typical fortification.
I'm not a baker or a cow farmer so I don't know in what situations salt can be replaced with potassium chloride. I think in a lot of cases potassium chloride should be able to be added with limited issues as saltier things tend to taste better.
If you really felt bad, you would also have to be diligently doing research on suffering rates per calorie of each plant food.
It's not immediately obvious whether the crop deaths of a slice of bread which is more easily understood as vegan, causes less suffering than eating a farmed oyster and the killing of its resulting by-catch (barnacles perhaps?).
If anyone can point me towards any research of different foods -> suffering (maybe neurons as a proxy?) I would love it.
Transparency is only a means for reputation. The world is built on trust and faith in the systems and EA is no different.
I believe more people would be alarmed by the lack of independent vetting than the nominal cost effective numbers being inaccurate themself. It feels like there are perverse incentives at play.