What does that even mean in this context? cost =/= value, and empirically longtermist EA has nowhere near the amounts of $s as would be implied by this model.
@Linch, I’m curious if you’ve taken an intermediate microeconomics course. The idea of maximizing utility subject to a budget constraint (ie. constrained maximization) is the core idea, and is literally what EAs are doing. I’ve been thinking for a while now about writing up the basic idea of constrained maximization, and showing how it applies to EAs. Do you think that would be worthwhile?
What does that even mean in this context? cost =/= value, and empirically longtermist EA has nowhere near the amounts of $s as would be implied by this model.
@Linch, I’m curious if you’ve taken an intermediate microeconomics course. The idea of maximizing utility subject to a budget constraint (ie. constrained maximization) is the core idea, and is literally what EAs are doing. I’ve been thinking for a while now about writing up the basic idea of constrained maximization, and showing how it applies to EAs. Do you think that would be worthwhile?
I’d love to read such a post.
I did in sophomore year of college (Varian’s book I think?), but it was ~10 years ago so I don’t remember much. 😅😅😅. A primer may be helpful, sure.
(That said, I think it would be more worthwhile if you used your model to produce an answer to my question, and then illustrate some implications).
Given an intervention of value v, you should be willing to pay for it if the cost c satisfies c≤v (with indifference at equality).
If your budget constraint is binding, then you allocate it across causes so as to maximize utility.