I’m curious about how you model the time discounting more in detail:
As I read it right now, you pick six fixed multipliers for six fixed future time intervals. Am I understanding this correctly?
Under some assumptions that are common in EA that I don’t share such as the time of perils hypothesis, this would mean that, at least for some ways of computing, most utility is in the 500+ bucket.
And then the model would be very sensitive to people putting 0 vs any nonzero number for the 500+ years bucket. Is this the case?
Short answer: yes, you’re understanding this correctly. And, yes, the model’s allocations can be sensitive to putting any non-zero weight in for the value of impacts 500+ years out (but worldview diversification can mitigate this factor’s impact on the outcome).
The model computes a “score” for each fund based on the sum of: (impact in time period t)*(weight in time period t) over all time periods.
In our estimates of the impacts of GCR funds, we do take the approach of estimating the impact of avoiding an existential catastrophe over many generations in the future. As such, if you were to give full weight to further-out time periods, the vast majority of the expected impact of avoiding an existential catastrophe is in the long-run future. So any weight that is meaningfully above zero will make these projects have a large-in-magnitude score, all else equal, compared to putting a weight of zero. (We’re preparing a more detailed sensitivity analysis that we’ll release soon, and which will address your question in more detail.)
Nevertheless, it’s important to note that our recommended allocations are influenced by 14 worldviews, some of which assign zero weight to the far future. As such, we’re not forced to choose between putting zero weight on the 500+ year period vs. some non-trivial amount that swamps the calculations. This creates a meaningful amount of diversification within the model’s results, allowing other factors like moral weights to be influential.
Additionally, there’s an interaction between risk attitudes and the amount of weight that one puts on the far future, such that putting a non-zero amount on the 500+ year period doesn’t automatically recommend you spend 100% of your budget on GCR funds. For instance, if you’re highly risk-averse and put a weight of 1% on the 500+ year period, then you might avoid funding certain GCR funds that have a high enough chance of raising existential risk, because permanently harming the long-run future would have such a considerable impact.
If you’re interested in reading more about the worldviews we’ve used in the model, please feel free to reference this link.
I’m curious about how you model the time discounting more in detail:
As I read it right now, you pick six fixed multipliers for six fixed future time intervals. Am I understanding this correctly?
Under some assumptions that are common in EA that I don’t share such as the time of perils hypothesis, this would mean that, at least for some ways of computing, most utility is in the 500+ bucket.
And then the model would be very sensitive to people putting 0 vs any nonzero number for the 500+ years bucket. Is this the case?
Hi Clara,
Thanks for the good question!
Short answer: yes, you’re understanding this correctly. And, yes, the model’s allocations can be sensitive to putting any non-zero weight in for the value of impacts 500+ years out (but worldview diversification can mitigate this factor’s impact on the outcome).
The model computes a “score” for each fund based on the sum of: (impact in time period t)*(weight in time period t) over all time periods.
In our estimates of the impacts of GCR funds, we do take the approach of estimating the impact of avoiding an existential catastrophe over many generations in the future. As such, if you were to give full weight to further-out time periods, the vast majority of the expected impact of avoiding an existential catastrophe is in the long-run future. So any weight that is meaningfully above zero will make these projects have a large-in-magnitude score, all else equal, compared to putting a weight of zero. (We’re preparing a more detailed sensitivity analysis that we’ll release soon, and which will address your question in more detail.)
Nevertheless, it’s important to note that our recommended allocations are influenced by 14 worldviews, some of which assign zero weight to the far future. As such, we’re not forced to choose between putting zero weight on the 500+ year period vs. some non-trivial amount that swamps the calculations. This creates a meaningful amount of diversification within the model’s results, allowing other factors like moral weights to be influential.
Additionally, there’s an interaction between risk attitudes and the amount of weight that one puts on the far future, such that putting a non-zero amount on the 500+ year period doesn’t automatically recommend you spend 100% of your budget on GCR funds. For instance, if you’re highly risk-averse and put a weight of 1% on the 500+ year period, then you might avoid funding certain GCR funds that have a high enough chance of raising existential risk, because permanently harming the long-run future would have such a considerable impact.
If you’re interested in reading more about the worldviews we’ve used in the model, please feel free to reference this link.
Thanks again for the question!
Hey, thanks for your reply, I found it very informative.
I’m excited to read your sensitivity analysis writeup when you publish it.
Of course! We’re also happy to answer any additional methodological questions you may have in the future