concludes that human extinction would be a big welfare improvement
I don’t think he concludes that either, nor do I know if he agrees with that. Maybe he implies that? Maybe he concludes that if our current trajectory is maintained / locked-inthen human extinction would be a big welfare improvement? Though Kyle is also clear to emphasize the uncertainty and tentativeness of his analysis.
Though Kyle is also clear to emphasize the uncertainty and tentativeness of his analysis.
I think if you want to emphasize uncertainty and tentativeness it is a good idea to include something like error bars, and to highlight that one of the key assumptions involves fixing a parameter (the weight on hedonism) at the maximally unfavourable value (100%).
It is bizarre to me that people would disagree-vote this as it seems to be a true description of the edit you made. If people think the edit is bad they should downvote, not disagreevote.
Thanks; edited to change those to “here’s a selection from their bottom-line point estimates comparing animals to humans” and [EDIT: see above].
I don’t think he concludes that either, nor do I know if he agrees with that. Maybe he implies that? Maybe he concludes that if our current trajectory is maintained / locked-in then human extinction would be a big welfare improvement? Though Kyle is also clear to emphasize the uncertainty and tentativeness of his analysis.
I think if you want to emphasize uncertainty and tentativeness it is a good idea to include something like error bars, and to highlight that one of the key assumptions involves fixing a parameter (the weight on hedonism) at the maximally unfavourable value (100%).
Edited again; see above.
It is bizarre to me that people would disagree-vote this as it seems to be a true description of the edit you made. If people think the edit is bad they should downvote, not disagreevote.
Eh; I interpret this upvote+disagree to mean “I think it’s good that you posted that you made the edit, but the edit it doesn’t fix the problem”