Yes, one might say that, even if successful, Tarsney’s arguments don’t really negate Thorstad’s. It’s more that, using a more comprehensive modeling approach, we see that—even taking Thorstad’s arguments into account—fanatical longtermism remains correct and non-fanatical longtermism remains plausible given some/many/most plausible empirical assumptions. But I don’t remember exactly what all of Thorstad’s specific arguments in the paper were and how/whether they are accounted for in Tarsney’s paper, so someone better informed may please correct me.
4 votes
Overall karma indicates overall quality.
Total points: 1
Agreement karma indicates agreement, separate from overall quality.
Interesting, the paper is older than Thorstad’s blogposts, but it could still be that people are thinking of this as “the answer”.
5 votes
Overall karma indicates overall quality.
Total points: 1
Agreement karma indicates agreement, separate from overall quality.
Yes, one might say that, even if successful, Tarsney’s arguments don’t really negate Thorstad’s. It’s more that, using a more comprehensive modeling approach, we see that—even taking Thorstad’s arguments into account—fanatical longtermism remains correct and non-fanatical longtermism remains plausible given some/many/most plausible empirical assumptions. But I don’t remember exactly what all of Thorstad’s specific arguments in the paper were and how/whether they are accounted for in Tarsney’s paper, so someone better informed may please correct me.