After reading this, I think that the reader should:
//
3. Slightly increase credence that something like The Patient Philanthropy Project, which pretty much conditions on no AGI soon, is a good idea.
It seems to me that to the extent that one is persuaded by your argument, one should update in the direction of “patient longtermism”. But that’s different from patient philanthropy, as Owen Cotton-Barratt points out:
[T]here is no direct implication that “patient longtermists” should be less willing to spend money now than “urgent longtermists”. Rather I think it’s an open question which will depend on a lot of messy empirics (about giving opportunities) which position should be more in favour of saving money now. My current guess is to recommend spending rather than saving money at current margins to both patient and urgent longtermists.
This doesn’t mean that what you wrote is strictly wrong, but it seems worth noticing.
A fairly minor point. You write:
It seems to me that to the extent that one is persuaded by your argument, one should update in the direction of “patient longtermism”. But that’s different from patient philanthropy, as Owen Cotton-Barratt points out:
This doesn’t mean that what you wrote is strictly wrong, but it seems worth noticing.
Makes sense, thanks Stefan.