Thanks Vasco! Please feel free to post your entire response in the comment section on Substack, as this is where most of our readers are. I will write more on the Welfare Ranges project later, but I will say that I am quite skeptical of neural counts as a proxy for welfare ranges.
You are welcome! I only posted the comment here to avoid having to keep 2 threads updated. You may consider linking to your EA Forum crossposts at the start of your substack posts.
I will write more on the Welfare Ranges project later
Good to know!
I am quite skeptical of neural counts as a proxy for welfare ranges
Are you sceptical of welfare ranges being proportional to “individual number of neurons”^”exponent”? I think it makes a lot of sense that one is spectical of any particular exponent. For example, of welfare ranges being proportional to the individual number of neurons, which corresponds to an exponent of 1. However, being sceptical about any exponent requires much more confidence. For instance, it would require being sceptical of the welfare ranges presented in Bob’s book, which are pretty well explained by an exponent of 0.188 (see 1st graphs in my last comment).
Thanks Vasco! Please feel free to post your entire response in the comment section on Substack, as this is where most of our readers are. I will write more on the Welfare Ranges project later, but I will say that I am quite skeptical of neural counts as a proxy for welfare ranges.
You are welcome! I only posted the comment here to avoid having to keep 2 threads updated. You may consider linking to your EA Forum crossposts at the start of your substack posts.
Good to know!
Are you sceptical of welfare ranges being proportional to “individual number of neurons”^”exponent”? I think it makes a lot of sense that one is spectical of any particular exponent. For example, of welfare ranges being proportional to the individual number of neurons, which corresponds to an exponent of 1. However, being sceptical about any exponent requires much more confidence. For instance, it would require being sceptical of the welfare ranges presented in Bob’s book, which are pretty well explained by an exponent of 0.188 (see 1st graphs in my last comment).