I think I would have found this more interesting/informative if the scenarios (or other key parts of the analysis) came with quantitative forecasts. I realise of course this is hard, but without this I feel like we are left with many things being ‘plausible’. And then do seven “plausible”s sum to make a “likely”? Hard to say!
That said, I think this could be a useful intro to arguments for short timelines to people without much familiarity with this discourse.
Thanks for the feedback! I essentially agree that quantitative forecasts would be a valuable addition to this work. Actually, I’d previously planned to include a basic model as an appendix alongside the qualitative analysis of the full report, but just didn’t end up having the capacity at the time to pull together forecasts that felt genuinely meaningful. (My first attempt resulted in a model which was wildly sensitive to small changes in the values of each parameter, and just didn’t feel useful.) I welcome any efforts to build on the ideas/scenarios in my report in this way, and would be keen to chat to anyone doing work in this rough direction!
For what it’s worth (and I indicate this in the ‘Purpose’ section at the start of the report), I think the main utility of the report as it stands—as a largely qualitative piece of work—is less in its establishing a conclusion about the plausibility/likelihood of short timelines and more in its use as a resource for understanding and engaging with the timelines debate. With respect to the former goal, it would definitely benefit from more quantification than I currently provide. But my hope is more that this report will be something people can use to familiarise themselves with the debate, refer to in their own work, build upon, etc.
I think I would have found this more interesting/informative if the scenarios (or other key parts of the analysis) came with quantitative forecasts. I realise of course this is hard, but without this I feel like we are left with many things being ‘plausible’. And then do seven “plausible”s sum to make a “likely”? Hard to say! That said, I think this could be a useful intro to arguments for short timelines to people without much familiarity with this discourse.
Thanks for the feedback! I essentially agree that quantitative forecasts would be a valuable addition to this work. Actually, I’d previously planned to include a basic model as an appendix alongside the qualitative analysis of the full report, but just didn’t end up having the capacity at the time to pull together forecasts that felt genuinely meaningful. (My first attempt resulted in a model which was wildly sensitive to small changes in the values of each parameter, and just didn’t feel useful.) I welcome any efforts to build on the ideas/scenarios in my report in this way, and would be keen to chat to anyone doing work in this rough direction!
For what it’s worth (and I indicate this in the ‘Purpose’ section at the start of the report), I think the main utility of the report as it stands—as a largely qualitative piece of work—is less in its establishing a conclusion about the plausibility/likelihood of short timelines and more in its use as a resource for understanding and engaging with the timelines debate. With respect to the former goal, it would definitely benefit from more quantification than I currently provide. But my hope is more that this report will be something people can use to familiarise themselves with the debate, refer to in their own work, build upon, etc.