Doubling the cost effectiveness while maintaining cost absorbed, and doubling cost absorbed while maintaining cost effectiveness, would both take work (scaling without dilution/ābreaking is also hard). Probably one tends to be harder, but thatād vary a lot between cases. But if we could achieve either for free by magic, or alternatively if we assume an equal hardness for either, then doubling cost effectiveness would very likely be better, for the reason stated above. (And thatās sufficient for āliterally the sameā to have been an inaccurate claim.)
I think thatās just fairly obvious. Like if you really imagine you could press a button to have either effect on 80k for free or for the same cost either way, I think you really should want to press the āmore cost effectiveā button, otherwise youāre basically spending extra talent for no reason. (With the caveat given above. Also a caveat that absorbing talent also helps build their career capitalāshouldāve mentioned that earlier. But still thatās probably less good than them doing some other option and 80k getting the extra impact without extra labour.)
As noted above, weāre still fairly constrained on some resources, esp. certain types of talent. We donāt have left overs of all types of resources. (E.g. I could very easily swap from my current job into any of several other high impact jobs, but wonāt because thereās only 1 me and I think my current job is the best use of current me, and I know several other people in this position. With respect to such people, there are left over positions/āproject ideas, not left over resources-in-the-form-of-people.)
Doubling the cost effectiveness while maintaining cost absorbed, and doubling cost absorbed while maintaining cost effectiveness, would both take work (scaling without dilution/ābreaking is also hard). Probably one tends to be harder, but thatād vary a lot between cases. But if we could achieve either for free by magic, or alternatively if we assume an equal hardness for either, then doubling cost effectiveness would very likely be better, for the reason stated above. (And thatās sufficient for āliterally the sameā to have been an inaccurate claim.)
I think thatās just fairly obvious. Like if you really imagine you could press a button to have either effect on 80k for free or for the same cost either way, I think you really should want to press the āmore cost effectiveā button, otherwise youāre basically spending extra talent for no reason. (With the caveat given above. Also a caveat that absorbing talent also helps build their career capitalāshouldāve mentioned that earlier. But still thatās probably less good than them doing some other option and 80k getting the extra impact without extra labour.)
As noted above, weāre still fairly constrained on some resources, esp. certain types of talent. We donāt have left overs of all types of resources. (E.g. I could very easily swap from my current job into any of several other high impact jobs, but wonāt because thereās only 1 me and I think my current job is the best use of current me, and I know several other people in this position. With respect to such people, there are left over positions/āproject ideas, not left over resources-in-the-form-of-people.)