Cost-effectiveness in DALYs per $1k (90% CI) / % of simulation results with positive outcomes—negative outcomes—no effects / alternative weightings of cost-eff under different risk aversion profiles and weighting schemes in weighted DALYs per $1k, min to max values
Portfolio of biorisk projects ($15-30M budget, 60% chance no effect, 70% effect is positive): 132 (middle 99.9% of expected utility is 0) / >99.9% no effect / risk 0 − 132
Nanotech safety megaproject ($10-30M budget, 90% chance no effect, 70% effect is positive): 73 (middle 99.9% of EU is 0) / >99.9% no effect / risk −10 − 73
AI misalignment megaproject ($8-28B budget, 97.3% chance no effect, 70% effect is positive): 154 (middle 99.9% of EU is 27, 99% is 0) / >99.6% no effect / risk −56 − 154
Some things that jumped out at me (caveating that I don’t work in any of these areas):
I’m a little surprised that only chicken campaigns are modeled as clearly higher EV (OOM-wise) than GHD interventions considered good by GW & OP’s lights, while interventions for other nonhuman animals fall short
I’m also surprised that chickens > all other nonhuman animals on both EV and p(+ve simulation outcome). There’s some discussion that seems to indicate that cage-free work seems to be much lower EV now than previously, although I’m not sure if it changes the takeaway (and in any case funding prioritization shouldn’t be purely EV-based)
I’m surprised yet again that a >$10B AI misalignment megaproject is modeled as having no effect in >99.6% of simuls. I probably hadn’t internalized the ‘hits’ in ‘hits-based giving’ as well as I should, since my earlier gut intuition (based on no data whatsoever) was that a near-Manhattan-scale megaproject would surely have some effect in >10% of possible worlds
I didn’t expect the model to say chickens > misaligned AI, unsafe nanotech and biorisk from a risk-neutral EV perspective. That said, the x-risk inputs are in some sense just placeholders, so I don’t put much weight in this
In any case, I’d be curious to see how the CCM is taken into consideration by funders and other stakeholders going forward.
Some notes from trying out Rethink Priorities’ new cross-cause cost-effectiveness model (CCM) from their post, for personal reference:
Cost-effectiveness in DALYs per $1k (90% CI) / % of simulation results with positive outcomes—negative outcomes—no effects / alternative weightings of cost-eff under different risk aversion profiles and weighting schemes in weighted DALYs per $1k, min to max values
GHD:
US govt GHD: 1 (range: 0.85 − 1.22) / 100% positive / risk 1 − 1
Cash: 1.7 (range 1.1 − 2.5) / 100% positive / risk 1 − 2
GW bar: 21 (range: 11 − 42) / 100% positive / risk 16 − 21 (OP bar has ~similar figures)
Good intervention (per OP & GW): 39 (range: 15 − 67) / 100% positive / risk 31 − 39
AW—generic interventions:
Black soldier fly: 5.6 (range: 95% below 11.4) / 16% positive, 84% no effect / risk 0 − 6
Shrimp: 7.8 (range: 95% below 8.0) / 19% positive, 81% no effect / risk 0 − 8
Carp: 36 (range: 95% below 145) / 31% positive, 69% no effect / risk 2 − 36
Chicken: 719 (range: 95% below 2,100) / 81% positive, 19% no effect / risk 221 − 717
x-risk:
Portfolio of biorisk projects ($15-30M budget, 60% chance no effect, 70% effect is positive): 132 (middle 99.9% of expected utility is 0) / >99.9% no effect / risk 0 − 132
Nanotech safety megaproject ($10-30M budget, 90% chance no effect, 70% effect is positive): 73 (middle 99.9% of EU is 0) / >99.9% no effect / risk −10 − 73
AI misalignment megaproject ($8-28B budget, 97.3% chance no effect, 70% effect is positive): 154 (middle 99.9% of EU is 27, 99% is 0) / >99.6% no effect / risk −56 − 154
Some things that jumped out at me (caveating that I don’t work in any of these areas):
I’m a little surprised that only chicken campaigns are modeled as clearly higher EV (OOM-wise) than GHD interventions considered good by GW & OP’s lights, while interventions for other nonhuman animals fall short
I’m also surprised that chickens > all other nonhuman animals on both EV and p(+ve simulation outcome). There’s some discussion that seems to indicate that cage-free work seems to be much lower EV now than previously, although I’m not sure if it changes the takeaway (and in any case funding prioritization shouldn’t be purely EV-based)
I’m surprised yet again that a >$10B AI misalignment megaproject is modeled as having no effect in >99.6% of simuls. I probably hadn’t internalized the ‘hits’ in ‘hits-based giving’ as well as I should, since my earlier gut intuition (based on no data whatsoever) was that a near-Manhattan-scale megaproject would surely have some effect in >10% of possible worlds
I didn’t expect the model to say chickens > misaligned AI, unsafe nanotech and biorisk from a risk-neutral EV perspective. That said, the x-risk inputs are in some sense just placeholders, so I don’t put much weight in this
In any case, I’d be curious to see how the CCM is taken into consideration by funders and other stakeholders going forward.