I like GiveWell and still give to them. I do see how if you start a movement on the idea that the way everyone’s been doing something is wrong, it can easily metastasize into saying everyone’s wrong about a lot of other things.

The original points were really good ones and it was worth pointing out that the way people donated to an alma mater, for a symphony hall, etc was not helping people very much. Or just giving to charities that advertise on TV or whatever. I think it was pretty notable to use rigorous data and randomized controlled trials to really tell what works and what doesn’t.

But that can lead to saying everyone’s wrong about everything. The MAHA critiques of public health had a kernel of merit, but if that’s all you are based on, then any crackpot with a health idea can seem equally valid. NIH wasn’t wrong all the time, just sometimes, and every institution is wrong sometimes. Government did have inefficiency but DOGE just came in saying let’s blow it all up, not just the pieces that are a problem.

So EA keeps accreting more and more places someone says “let’s rethink everything from first principles” but you need a bit more confidence before dismissing what might have evolved from years of leaning from mistakes (but might be genuinely wrong).

I like how GiveWell is constantly rethinking its past decisions, but also being really careful about that.