Of all the arguments you’ve heard for de-prioritizing GCR reduction, which do you find most convincing?
The only plausible argument I can imagine for de-prioritizing GCR reduction is if there are other activities out there that can offer permanent expected gains that are comparably large as the permanent expected losses from GCRs. Nick Beckstead puts this well in his dissertation discussion of far future trajectories, or the concept of “existential hope” from Owen Cotton-Barratt & Toby Ord. But in practical terms the bulk of the opportunity appears to be in gcr/xrisk.
I contributed a small amount of content to this, along with one other GCRI affiliate, but the bulk of the credit goes to the lead authors Stuart Armstrong and Dennis Pamlin. There are synergies between this and GCRI’s integrated assessment. We are in ongoing conversation about that. One core difference is that our integrated assessment focuses a lot more on interventions to reduce the risks.
How many man-hours per week are currently going into GCRI. How many paid staff do you have and who are they?
I don’t have data on person-hours. I am the only full-time GCRI staff. We have some people doing paid part-time work, and a lot of ‘volunteering’, though much of the ‘volunteering’ comes from people who participate in GCRI as part of their ‘day job’ - for example faculty members with related research interests.
What would you say is the single most impressive achievement that GCRI has achieved to date?
What I’m proudest of is the high-level stakeholder engagement we’ve had, especially on nuclear weapons. This includes speaking at important DC think tanks, the United Nations, and more. Our research is good, but research isn’t worth much unless the ideas actually go places. We’re doing well with getting our ideas out to people who can really use them.
The only plausible argument I can imagine for de-prioritizing GCR reduction is if there are other activities out there that can offer permanent expected gains that are comparably large as the permanent expected losses from GCRs.
Then I guess you don’t think it’s plausible that we can’t expect to make many permanent gains. Why?
I’ll have to look at that link later, but briefly, I do think it can be possible to make some permanent gains, but there seem to be significantly more opportunities to avoid permanent losses. That said, I do not wish to dismiss the possibility of permanent gains, and am very much willing to consider them as of potential comparable significance.
What funding will GCRI require over the coming year to maintain these activities?
GCRI has a small base of ongoing funding that keeps the doors open, so to speak, except that we don’t have any actual doors. I will say, not having an office space really lowers costs!
The important thing is that GCRI is in an excellent place to convert additional funding into additional productivity, mainly by freeing up additional person-hours of work.
Here are four questions reposted from the announcement thread:
Bitton: Of all the arguments you’ve heard for de-prioritizing GCR reduction, which do you find most convincing?
Niel Bowerman: What is your assessment of the recent report by FHI and the Global Challenges Foundation? http://globalchallenges.org/wp-content/uploads/12-Risks-with-infinite-impact-full-report-1.pdf How will your integrated assessment differ from this?
Niel Bowerman: How many man-hours per week are currently going into GCRI. How many paid staff do you have and who are they?
Niel Bowerman: - What would you say is the single most impressive achievement that GCRI has achieved to date?
Good questions!
The only plausible argument I can imagine for de-prioritizing GCR reduction is if there are other activities out there that can offer permanent expected gains that are comparably large as the permanent expected losses from GCRs. Nick Beckstead puts this well in his dissertation discussion of far future trajectories, or the concept of “existential hope” from Owen Cotton-Barratt & Toby Ord. But in practical terms the bulk of the opportunity appears to be in gcr/xrisk.
I contributed a small amount of content to this, along with one other GCRI affiliate, but the bulk of the credit goes to the lead authors Stuart Armstrong and Dennis Pamlin. There are synergies between this and GCRI’s integrated assessment. We are in ongoing conversation about that. One core difference is that our integrated assessment focuses a lot more on interventions to reduce the risks.
I don’t have data on person-hours. I am the only full-time GCRI staff. We have some people doing paid part-time work, and a lot of ‘volunteering’, though much of the ‘volunteering’ comes from people who participate in GCRI as part of their ‘day job’ - for example faculty members with related research interests.
What I’m proudest of is the high-level stakeholder engagement we’ve had, especially on nuclear weapons. This includes speaking at important DC think tanks, the United Nations, and more. Our research is good, but research isn’t worth much unless the ideas actually go places. We’re doing well with getting our ideas out to people who can really use them.
Then I guess you don’t think it’s plausible that we can’t expect to make many permanent gains.
Why?
I’ll have to look at that link later, but briefly, I do think it can be possible to make some permanent gains, but there seem to be significantly more opportunities to avoid permanent losses. That said, I do not wish to dismiss the possibility of permanent gains, and am very much willing to consider them as of potential comparable significance.
What funding will GCRI require over the coming year to maintain these activities?
GCRI has a small base of ongoing funding that keeps the doors open, so to speak, except that we don’t have any actual doors. I will say, not having an office space really lowers costs!
The important thing is that GCRI is in an excellent place to convert additional funding into additional productivity, mainly by freeing up additional person-hours of work.