Resolves YES if at any point before 2026 either:
1) At least one of current GiveWell's top charities turns out to be less than 30% as cost-effective as GiveWell currently claims (e.g. there is some significant fraud/mismanagement of funds at GiveWell itself or one of the top charities that makes the cost-effectiveness go to 0)
2) None of the current top charities (Malaria Consortium, Against Malaria Foundation, Helen Keller International's Vitamin A Supplementation Program, New Incentives) is still a top recommended charity by the most used cost-effectiveness charity evaluator for Global Health and Development (according to me) (edit: I meant "most used according to me", basically the most popular one in EA)
EDIT for 2): Resolves as YES only if it turned out they weren't the most cost-effective places to donate in 2022, not if e.g. all 4 problems are solved by 2026
Random example: Resolves YES if the EA Funds and the EA consensus manages Global Health interventions following the Happier Lives Institute recommendations
2) is very hard to estimate right now because I cannot model your future or current ethics there - can you tell us which criteria you would most likely use for cost-effectiveness evaluation? E.g., does this depend on your future or current view on population ethics?
@lu It depends on my future understanding of the "EA Consensus". Today I would look at e.g. The Global Health And Development Fund ( https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/charities/global-health-and-development-fund ) is basically just GiveWell, and the Global Health donations here https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LNbzDCgCH2py3cnJv/where-are-you-donating-this-year-and-why-open-thread (mostly GiveWell).
It does not depend on my personal views on the quality of the recommendations, only on their popularity/reputation in EA
what if those charities are no longer the most cost-effective because we've to a large extent solved those problems? (I don't expect this by 2026 but it seems like a thing that would happen at some point)