I suspect it’s basically impossible to model all the relevant far-future considerations in a way that feels believable (i.e. high confidence that the sign of all considerations is correct, plus high confidence that you’re not missing anything crucial).
...the effect of AMF is still net positive.
I share this intuition, but “still net positive” is a long way off from “most cost-effective.”
AMF has received so much scrutiny because it’s a contender for the most cost-effective way to give money – I’m skeptical we can make believable claims about cost-effect when we take the far future into account.
I’m more bullish about assessing the sign of interventions while taking the far future into account, though that still feels fraught.
I suspect it’s basically impossible to model all the relevant far-future considerations in a way that feels believable (i.e. high confidence that the sign of all considerations is correct, plus high confidence that you’re not missing anything crucial).
I share this intuition, but “still net positive” is a long way off from “most cost-effective.”
AMF has received so much scrutiny because it’s a contender for the most cost-effective way to give money – I’m skeptical we can make believable claims about cost-effect when we take the far future into account.
I’m more bullish about assessing the sign of interventions while taking the far future into account, though that still feels fraught.