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.
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.