It’s not ignoring them, it’s selecting interventions which look more robustly good, about which we aren’t so clueless.
Is that idea that once these longtermist interventions are fully-funded (diminishing returns), then we start looking at shortterm interventions?
I think the claim is that we don’t know that any short-termist interventions are good in expectation, because of cluelessness.
For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with this claim; this depends on your specific beliefs about the long-term effects of interventions.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
It’s not ignoring them, it’s selecting interventions which look more robustly good, about which we aren’t so clueless.
Is that idea that once these longtermist interventions are fully-funded (diminishing returns), then we start looking at shortterm interventions?
I think the claim is that we don’t know that any short-termist interventions are good in expectation, because of cluelessness.
For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with this claim; this depends on your specific beliefs about the long-term effects of interventions.