I wonder how much of your intuition comes from thinking that marginal (ex ante) impact of marginal EAG attendees is much lower than the existing average, vs normal logarithmic prior considerations vs how much of it comes from diseases of scale (e.g. higher population making things harder to coordinate, pressure towards conformity).
The first consideration is especially interesting to isolate, since:
I think the value of marginally more people in EA should likely also be modeled as having logarithmic returns (or I might argue worse than logarithmic returns, but I think logarithmic is the right prior
If you think doubling the quality-adjusted people in EA overall has logarithmic returns, you still get ~linear effects from doubling the output of one event or outreach project, since differential functions are locally linear.
I wonder how much of your intuition comes from thinking that marginal (ex ante) impact of marginal EAG attendees is much lower than the existing average, vs normal logarithmic prior considerations vs how much of it comes from diseases of scale (e.g. higher population making things harder to coordinate, pressure towards conformity).
The first consideration is especially interesting to isolate, since:
If you think doubling the quality-adjusted people in EA overall has logarithmic returns, you still get ~linear effects from doubling the output of one event or outreach project, since differential functions are locally linear.