I found the above comment coherent, readable, and useful as a complementary framework to the original post (which I also liked)
Two things I think this comment added that Iād have ideally liked to see the original post more explicitly note are that neither the comment nor post discussed the important matters of:
āAcross-cause prioritization: Whether the marginal $ spent on research is better spent elsewhere
Prioritization in the context of differential technological progress: Whether weāre correctly differentially progressing research
thatās generically good for the long-term future over stuff thatās neutral or bad
(I think the post and comment already covered a lot of important ground, and itās ok that they didnāt address these things, but these things are crucial considerations here and so their omission should be very clearly noted.)
I found it useful that the section headings broke the comment up into chunks
I think the actual words of the section headings didnāt matter /ā werenāt helpful (though nor were they harmful)
It wouldāve been equally fine from my perpsective to use other words, just break things up with āāā, or organise the comment as bullet points and let a non-bulleted line or minimally indented line signify the start of a new āchunkā
(I work at the same org as Linch and David Reinstein, but all opinions here are my own, of course, and Iād be happy to disagree with them publicly if indeed I did disagree.)
FWIW:
I found the above comment coherent, readable, and useful as a complementary framework to the original post (which I also liked)
Two things I think this comment added that Iād have ideally liked to see the original post more explicitly note are that neither the comment nor post discussed the important matters of:
āAcross-cause prioritization: Whether the marginal $ spent on research is better spent elsewhere
Prioritization in the context of differential technological progress: Whether weāre correctly differentially progressing research
thatās generically good for the long-term future over stuff thatās neutral or bad
thatās contingently good for the future given the technologies currently available (in other words, developing technologies in the right order).ā
(I think the post and comment already covered a lot of important ground, and itās ok that they didnāt address these things, but these things are crucial considerations here and so their omission should be very clearly noted.)
I found it useful that the section headings broke the comment up into chunks
I think the actual words of the section headings didnāt matter /ā werenāt helpful (though nor were they harmful)
It wouldāve been equally fine from my perpsective to use other words, just break things up with āāā, or organise the comment as bullet points and let a non-bulleted line or minimally indented line signify the start of a new āchunkā
(I work at the same org as Linch and David Reinstein, but all opinions here are my own, of course, and Iād be happy to disagree with them publicly if indeed I did disagree.)