Nitpick, an absolute reduction of 10^-4 is often indicated as 0.01 pp (0.01 percentage points).
Furthermore, we might never have enough evidence to say whether an intervention has reduced cumulative x-risk by a certain amount. It might be more manageable to set a threshold based on reduction in per-century x-risk.
I would go a little further, and say that we might never have enough evidence to say whether non-extinction x-risk this century was reduced, as I think the evidence base for non-extinction value lock-in is quite poor (related links here). So I believe it is better to focus on extinction risk, or probability of a given population loss, as forecasted in the Existential-Risk Persuasion Tournament.
To clarify, the above estimate is a conservative cost-effectiveness bar for Open Philanthropy’s longtermist grants. In this section of episode 90 of The 80,000 Hours Podcast, Ajeya says it concerns “meta R&D to make responses to new pathogens faster”, and “[Open Philanthropy] were aiming for this to be conservative”.
Were these commenters expecting it to be much cheaper to save a life by preventing the loss of potential in an extinction, than to save a life using near-termist interventions?
I guess so.
These estimates are not robust enough to make the most important decisions we face. We recommend conducting a survey of funders, charities, and experts to get a stronger picture of what the standard should be and the cost-effectiveness of different types of work.
I would say better quantitative models would also be needed to more reliably estimate the cost-effectiveness of interventions aiming to decrease extinction risk.
Nice post, Spencer!
Nitpick, an absolute reduction of 10^-4 is often indicated as 0.01 pp (0.01 percentage points).
I would go a little further, and say that we might never have enough evidence to say whether non-extinction x-risk this century was reduced, as I think the evidence base for non-extinction value lock-in is quite poor (related links here). So I believe it is better to focus on extinction risk, or probability of a given population loss, as forecasted in the Existential-Risk Persuasion Tournament.
“$200 trillion per world saved”
Or $20 billion per bp
To clarify, the above estimate is a conservative cost-effectiveness bar for Open Philanthropy’s longtermist grants. In this section of episode 90 of The 80,000 Hours Podcast, Ajeya says it concerns “meta R&D to make responses to new pathogens faster”, and “[Open Philanthropy] were aiming for this to be conservative”.
I guess so.
I would say better quantitative models would also be needed to more reliably estimate the cost-effectiveness of interventions aiming to decrease extinction risk.
Thanks Vasco! This helps my understanding.