I was surprised to see person-affecting views weren’t on your list of exception, then I saw it was in the uncertainties section. FWIW, taking Gregory Lewis’ model at face value—I raised some concerns in a comment replying to that post—he concludes it’s $100,000 per life saved. If AMF is $3,500 per life saved then X-risk is a relatively poor buy (although perhaps tempting as a sort of ‘hedge’). That would only speak to your use of money: a person-affector could still conclude they’d do more good with a career focused on X-risk than elsewhere.
I was surprised to see person-affecting views weren’t on your list of exception, then I saw it was in the uncertainties section. FWIW, taking Gregory Lewis’ model at face value—I raised some concerns in a comment replying to that post—he concludes it’s $100,000 per life saved. If AMF is $3,500 per life saved then X-risk is a relatively poor buy (although perhaps tempting as a sort of ‘hedge’). That would only speak to your use of money: a person-affector could still conclude they’d do more good with a career focused on X-risk than elsewhere.
For AI, one estimate is $3-$1000 per life saved in the present generation (near bottom of model). For alternate foods for global agricultural catastrophes, one estimate is $0.20-$400 globally and $1-$20,000 in the US, both in the present generation.
Good point, thanks. It’s definitely not a knock-down argument.