Doom Debates host here. I personally prefer to measure expected value by factoring in the possibility that the show continues to grow exponentially to become a big influencer of AI discourse in the near future :)
OP’s ranking had Doom Debates at 3rd-from-bottom; I re-calculated the rankings in 3 different ways and Doom Debates came last in all of them. But I think this under-rates the expected value of Doom Debates because most of the value comes from the possibility that the channel blows up in the future.
This scoring system would also give “Nvidia” or “Lex Fridman” a low ranking based on Year 1 metrics—it’s the nature of scalable projects to make a large upfront investment in future results, and the methodology of matching up year 1 investment with year 1 results (and then comparing to another project’s year 1-10 investment with year 1-10 results) is a way to systematically rank projects higher when they’re later in their growth curve. Which could plausibly be what some people want to do, but it misses good early stage investment opportunities IMO.
Hey Liron! I think growth in viewership is a key reason to start and continue projects like Doom Debates. I think we’re still pretty early in the AI safety discourse, and the “market” should grow, along with all of these channels.
I also think that there are many other credible sources of impact other than raw viewership—for example, I think you interviewing Vitalik is great, because it legitimizes the field, puts his views on the record, and gives him space to reflect on what actions to take—even if not that many people end up seeing the video. (compare irl talks from speakers eg at Manifest—much fewer viewers per talk but the theory of impact is somewhat different)
Doom Debates host here. I personally prefer to measure expected value by factoring in the possibility that the show continues to grow exponentially to become a big influencer of AI discourse in the near future :)
OP’s ranking had Doom Debates at 3rd-from-bottom; I re-calculated the rankings in 3 different ways and Doom Debates came last in all of them. But I think this under-rates the expected value of Doom Debates because most of the value comes from the possibility that the channel blows up in the future.
Yeah, worth expanding on that IMO…
This scoring system would also give “Nvidia” or “Lex Fridman” a low ranking based on Year 1 metrics—it’s the nature of scalable projects to make a large upfront investment in future results, and the methodology of matching up year 1 investment with year 1 results (and then comparing to another project’s year 1-10 investment with year 1-10 results) is a way to systematically rank projects higher when they’re later in their growth curve. Which could plausibly be what some people want to do, but it misses good early stage investment opportunities IMO.
Hey Liron! I think growth in viewership is a key reason to start and continue projects like Doom Debates. I think we’re still pretty early in the AI safety discourse, and the “market” should grow, along with all of these channels.
I also think that there are many other credible sources of impact other than raw viewership—for example, I think you interviewing Vitalik is great, because it legitimizes the field, puts his views on the record, and gives him space to reflect on what actions to take—even if not that many people end up seeing the video. (compare irl talks from speakers eg at Manifest—much fewer viewers per talk but the theory of impact is somewhat different)
Thanks, yep agree on both counts