Okay-if you’re just trying to get the order of magnitude of the exponent correct, then this could be consistent with 10^10^1.5 ~10^30 lives/​£, which is plausible. As for the median population size, I guess you are trying to get an average over the time horizon which could extend 100 trillion years, so that’s why you’re saying it’s around zero with 50% as existential risk, which makes sense.
By the way, I was confused when I read this:
The parameters of humanity’s future duration were estimated as follows:
I think you mean population size instead of duration.
As for the median population size, I guess you are trying to get an average over the time horizon which could extend 100 trillion years, so that’s why you’re saying it’s around zero with 50% as existential risk, which makes sense.
Yes, that was it, thanks for clarifying!
I think you mean population size instead of duration.
Okay-if you’re just trying to get the order of magnitude of the exponent correct, then this could be consistent with 10^10^1.5 ~10^30 lives/​£, which is plausible. As for the median population size, I guess you are trying to get an average over the time horizon which could extend 100 trillion years, so that’s why you’re saying it’s around zero with 50% as existential risk, which makes sense.
By the way, I was confused when I read this:
I think you mean population size instead of duration.
Yes, that was it, thanks for clarifying!
Good catch, corrected!