If we’re being careful, should these considerations just be fully captured by Tractability/​Solvability? Essentially, the marginal % increase in resources only solves a small % of the problem, based on the definitions here.
Yes, the formula cancels out to good done /​ extra person or dollar, so the framework remains true by definition no matter what. Although if we are talking about a totally new cause, then % increase in resources is infinity and the model breaks.
But the way I see it, the framework is useful partly it’s because it’s easy to use intuitively. Maybe it’s just me, but when I’m now trying to think about newish causes with accelerating returns in terms of the model, I find it confusing. It’s easier just to think directly about what I can do and what impact it can end up having. Perhaps the model is not useful for new and newish causes.
It seems to me that there are two separate frameworks:
1) the informal Importance, Neglectedness, Tractability framework best suited to ruling out causes (i.e. this cause isn’t among the highest priority because it’s not [insert one or more of the three]); and
2) the formal 80,000 Hours Scale, Crowdedness, Solvability framework best used for quantitative comparison (by scoring causes on each of the three factors and then comparing the total).
Treating the second one as merely a formalization of the first one can be unhelpful when thinking through them. For example, even though the 80,000 Hours framework does not account for diminishing marginal returns, it justifies the inclusion of the crowdedness factor on the basis of diminishing marginal returns.
If we’re being careful, should these considerations just be fully captured by Tractability/​Solvability? Essentially, the marginal % increase in resources only solves a small % of the problem, based on the definitions here.
Yes, the formula cancels out to good done /​ extra person or dollar, so the framework remains true by definition no matter what. Although if we are talking about a totally new cause, then % increase in resources is infinity and the model breaks.
But the way I see it, the framework is useful partly it’s because it’s easy to use intuitively. Maybe it’s just me, but when I’m now trying to think about newish causes with accelerating returns in terms of the model, I find it confusing. It’s easier just to think directly about what I can do and what impact it can end up having. Perhaps the model is not useful for new and newish causes.
Also, I think the definition is different from how EAs casually use the model and I was making this point for people who are using it casually.
It seems to me that there are two separate frameworks:
1) the informal Importance, Neglectedness, Tractability framework best suited to ruling out causes (i.e. this cause isn’t among the highest priority because it’s not [insert one or more of the three]); and
2) the formal 80,000 Hours Scale, Crowdedness, Solvability framework best used for quantitative comparison (by scoring causes on each of the three factors and then comparing the total).
Treating the second one as merely a formalization of the first one can be unhelpful when thinking through them. For example, even though the 80,000 Hours framework does not account for diminishing marginal returns, it justifies the inclusion of the crowdedness factor on the basis of diminishing marginal returns.
Notably, EA Concepts has separate pages for the informal INT framework and the 80,000 Hours framework.