Executive summary: The paper challenges the view that reducing existential risk should be an overwhelming priority, arguing this is only justified under a strong “time of perils” assumption which currently seems unlikely.
Key points:
A simple model shows reducing existential risk this century is at most as valuable as expected this century.
Enduring risk reductions are valuable but unlikely achievable.
Higher risk discounts future value, so lower risk strengthens the case for mitigation.
Faster growing value makes mitigation more valuable, but high risk discounts this.
The “time of perils” hypothesis combines high short-term risk, low long-term risk, and fast growing value, but arguments for it are unconvincing.
Without strong evidence for “time of perils”, existential risk mitigation is important but not overwhelmingly so.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The paper challenges the view that reducing existential risk should be an overwhelming priority, arguing this is only justified under a strong “time of perils” assumption which currently seems unlikely.
Key points:
A simple model shows reducing existential risk this century is at most as valuable as expected this century.
Enduring risk reductions are valuable but unlikely achievable.
Higher risk discounts future value, so lower risk strengthens the case for mitigation.
Faster growing value makes mitigation more valuable, but high risk discounts this.
The “time of perils” hypothesis combines high short-term risk, low long-term risk, and fast growing value, but arguments for it are unconvincing.
Without strong evidence for “time of perils”, existential risk mitigation is important but not overwhelmingly so.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
+1