This is interesting. I’m strongly in favor of having rough models like this in general. Thanks for sharing!
Edit suggestions:
STI says “what percent of bad scenarios should we expect this to avert”, but the formula uses it as a fraction. Probably best to keep the formula and change the wording.
Would help to clarify that TXR is a probability of X-risk. (This is clear after a little thought/inspection, but might as well make it as easy to use as possible.)
Quick thoughts:
It might be helpful to talk in terms of research-years rather than researchers.
It’s slightly strange that the model assumes 1-P(xrisk) is linear in researchers, but then only estimates the coefficient from TXR x STI/(2 x SOT), when (1-TXR)/SOT should also be an estimate. It does make sense that risk would be “more nonlinear” for lower n_researchers, though.
This is interesting. I’m strongly in favor of having rough models like this in general. Thanks for sharing!
Edit suggestions:
STI says “what percent of bad scenarios should we expect this to avert”, but the formula uses it as a fraction. Probably best to keep the formula and change the wording.
Would help to clarify that TXR is a probability of X-risk. (This is clear after a little thought/inspection, but might as well make it as easy to use as possible.)
Quick thoughts:
It might be helpful to talk in terms of research-years rather than researchers.
It’s slightly strange that the model assumes 1-P(xrisk) is linear in researchers, but then only estimates the coefficient from TXR x STI/(2 x SOT), when (1-TXR)/SOT should also be an estimate. It does make sense that risk would be “more nonlinear” for lower n_researchers, though.