Hacker News Reader

I would say that using GiveWell is a perfectly fine approach, but it is not the one implied by the phrase "strongly consider".

View on HN

It’s outsourcing the “strongly consider” part; that is, donating through an organization that strongly considers effectiveness.

I’m not sure that “we should strongly consider” necessarily means you do the considering yourself, since “we” is fairly vague about who does the work. But maybe the wording could be clarified?

If the advice given by EA were simply, "here is our charity that tries to make good use of their money, you should donate to them", I think it'd look a lot different as a movement, and many common objections to it would be moot.

I don't understand why the objections would be moot; they would be the same. The "EA charity" would still invest significant sums in things like AI safety and still be driven by the same ideas that people are criticizing.

Also, fwiw, this is effectively already true. The main EA organizations are operating funds you can donate to directly, which they will subsequently distribute.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com