Yes, wasn’t trying to endorse all of those (and should have put numbers on their dodginess).
1. Interesting. I disagree for now but would love to see what persuaded you of this. Fully agree that softmax implies long shots.
2. Yes, new causes and also new interventions within causes.
3. Yes, I really should have expanded this, but was lazy / didn’t want to disturb the pleasant brevity. It’s only “moral” uncertainty about how much risk aversion you should have that changes anything. (à la this.)
4. Agree.
5. Agree.
6. I’m using (possibly misusing) WD to mean something more specific like “given cause A, what is best to do?; what about under cause B? what about under discount x?...”
7. Now I’m confused about whether 3=7.
8. Yeah it’s effective in the short run, but I would guess that the loss of integrity hurts us in the long run.
Excellent comment, thanks!
Yes, wasn’t trying to endorse all of those (and should have put numbers on their dodginess).
1. Interesting. I disagree for now but would love to see what persuaded you of this. Fully agree that softmax implies long shots.
2. Yes, new causes and also new interventions within causes.
3. Yes, I really should have expanded this, but was lazy / didn’t want to disturb the pleasant brevity. It’s only “moral” uncertainty about how much risk aversion you should have that changes anything. (à la this.)
4. Agree.
5. Agree.
6. I’m using (possibly misusing) WD to mean something more specific like “given cause A, what is best to do?; what about under cause B? what about under discount x?...”
7. Now I’m confused about whether 3=7.
8. Yeah it’s effective in the short run, but I would guess that the loss of integrity hurts us in the long run.
Will edit in your suggestions, thanks again.