Seems (almost) strictly easier than figuring out how much xrisk a project reduced in advance of its creation.
and we should really be moving in that direction, at least for xrisk reduction mega-projects.
I’ve been informed since the creation of my motivated reasoning in EA post that a number of places do explicit cost-effectiveness analysis of these things. I assume they’ll be improved in the future.
We’ll eventually have fairly quantitative models of all x-risk reduction efforts (ideally before we all die). My proposal is more forwards-looking than backwards looking.
Tbh I’m not aware of visibly successful xrisk reduction efforts, at least of this magnitude. So this is more of a future problem/incentivization scheme anyway.
This seems like a good example of what I’m concerned about. How could you show that a project reduced x-risk by any specific amount?
Some quick points:
Seems (almost) strictly easier than figuring out how much xrisk a project reduced in advance of its creation.
and we should really be moving in that direction, at least for xrisk reduction mega-projects.
I’ve been informed since the creation of my motivated reasoning in EA post that a number of places do explicit cost-effectiveness analysis of these things. I assume they’ll be improved in the future.
We’ll eventually have fairly quantitative models of all x-risk reduction efforts (ideally before we all die). My proposal is more forwards-looking than backwards looking.
Tbh I’m not aware of visibly successful xrisk reduction efforts, at least of this magnitude. So this is more of a future problem/incentivization scheme anyway.
I agree with that! I didn’t mean that the latter would be better, but that neither seems feasible.