{"items": [{"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1363399763922", "service": "gp", "text": "@Lucas\n\u00a0\"Does this mean that you're committed to avoid the stock options giving plan in the future?\"\n
\n
\nPartially. \u00a0It means I won't put off my giving entirely again, but I might still do some of my giving as stock options.", "timestamp": 1363399763}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106808239073321070854", "anchor": "gp-1363426147800", "service": "gp", "text": "So you decided against supporting the mitigation of existential risks?", "timestamp": 1363426147}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1363435904729", "service": "gp", "text": "@Alexander\n\u00a0I'm not that happy with the phrasing \"most effectively use it to help people in developing countries\". \u00a0I think it's there because currently it's way more cost effective to help people there than elsewhere, and this is likely to stay true for a long time, but \"most effectively use it to help people\" would be better (and mean the same thing for now).\n
\n
\nBut about 85% of people live in developing countries, so reducing existential risks still has a major effect on people in developing countries. \u00a0I'm not convinced that any existential risk reducing organization does better than givewell's top picks, but if I were this wouldn't keep me from supporting them.", "timestamp": 1363435904}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106808239073321070854", "anchor": "gp-1363436429499", "service": "gp", "text": "What do you think is the most likely reason that some people are convinced that e.g. MIRI is better than GiveWell's top picks? Your position implies that you think that they are probably wrong, but how?", "timestamp": 1363436429}, {"author": "Chris", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112938759017605010116", "anchor": "gp-1363438080669", "service": "gp", "text": "@Alexander\n\u00a0You've seen GiveWell's criticism of (then) SIAI, probably? \u00a0People who are convinced that GiveWell's top picks are worth supporting are likely to take GiveWell's negative picks seriously too.\n
\n
\nhttp://lesswrong.com/lw/cbs/thoughts_on_the_singularity_institute_si/", "timestamp": 1363438080}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106808239073321070854", "anchor": "gp-1363440908853", "service": "gp", "text": "Yes, but I haven't heard of anyone who changed his mind due to that post.\n
\n
\nThere is very little discussion exposing the disagreement between those who are in favor of such organisations and those who follow more conventional strategies.\u00a0", "timestamp": 1363440908}, {"author": "Chris", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112938759017605010116", "anchor": "gp-1363442139485", "service": "gp", "text": "Oops, I read your question backwards -- I thought you were asking why some people prefer GiveWell's picks to MIRI.\n
\n
\nI'm not sure the disagreement is unexposed. \u00a0A large chunk of it seems to be about the proper treatment of raw expected values, c.f.\u00a0\nhttp://blog.givewell.org/2011/08/18/why-we-cant-take-expected-value-estimates-literally-even-when-theyre-unbiased/", "timestamp": 1363442139}]}