Ah. So the EV is for a single year. But I still only see $1bn. So your number is âthis is the cost per life year saved if we spend the money this year and it causes an instanteous reduction in X-risk for this yearâ?
So your figure is the cost effectiveness of reducing instanteous X-risk at Tn, where Tn is now, whenever now is. But itâs not the cost effectiveness of that reduction at Tf, where Tf is some year in the future, because the further in the future this occurs, the less the EV is on PAA. If Iâm wondering what the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of T0, it would be to spend $1bn in 10 years and cause a reduction at T10, on your model I increase the mean age by 10 years to 48, the average cost per year become $12k. From the perspective of T10, reducing X-risk in the way you say at T10 is, again $9k.
By contrast, for totalists the calculations would be the same (excepting inflation, etc.).
Also, not sure why my comment was downvoted. I wasnât being rude (or, I think, stupid) and I think itâs unhelpful to downvote without explanation as it just looks petty and feels unfriendly.
Also, not sure why my comment was downvoted. I wasnât being rude (or, I think, stupid) and I think itâs unhelpful to downvote without explanation as it just looks petty and feels unfriendly.
I didnât downvote, but:
In which case Iâm not understanding your model. The âCost per life yearâ box is $1bn/âEV. How is that not a one off of $1bn? What have I missed?
The last two sentences of this come across as pretty curt to me. I think there is a wide range in how people interpret things like these, so it is probably just a bit of a communication style mismatch. (I think I have noticed a myself having a similar reaction to a few of your comments before where I donât think you meant any rudeness).
I think itâs unhelpful to downvote without explanation as it just looks petty and feels unfriendly.
I agree with this on some level, but Iâm not sure I want there to be uneven costs to upvoting/âdownvoting content. I think there is also an unfriendliness vs. enforcing standards tradeoff where the marginal decisions will typically look petty.
I didnât see it as all that snipey. I think downvotes should be reserved for more severe tonal misdemeanours than this.
Thereâs a bit of difficult balance between necessary policing of tone and engagement with substantive arguments. I think as a rule people tend to talk about tone too much in arguments to the detriment of talking about the substance.
The EV in question is the reduction in x-risk for a single year, not across the century. Iâll change the wording to make this clearer.
Ah. So the EV is for a single year. But I still only see $1bn. So your number is âthis is the cost per life year saved if we spend the money this year and it causes an instanteous reduction in X-risk for this yearâ?
So your figure is the cost effectiveness of reducing instanteous X-risk at Tn, where Tn is now, whenever now is. But itâs not the cost effectiveness of that reduction at Tf, where Tf is some year in the future, because the further in the future this occurs, the less the EV is on PAA. If Iâm wondering what the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of T0, it would be to spend $1bn in 10 years and cause a reduction at T10, on your model I increase the mean age by 10 years to 48, the average cost per year become $12k. From the perspective of T10, reducing X-risk in the way you say at T10 is, again $9k.
By contrast, for totalists the calculations would be the same (excepting inflation, etc.).
Also, not sure why my comment was downvoted. I wasnât being rude (or, I think, stupid) and I think itâs unhelpful to downvote without explanation as it just looks petty and feels unfriendly.
I didnât downvote, but:
The last two sentences of this come across as pretty curt to me. I think there is a wide range in how people interpret things like these, so it is probably just a bit of a communication style mismatch. (I think I have noticed a myself having a similar reaction to a few of your comments before where I donât think you meant any rudeness).
I agree with this on some level, but Iâm not sure I want there to be uneven costs to upvoting/âdownvoting content. I think there is also an unfriendliness vs. enforcing standards tradeoff where the marginal decisions will typically look petty.
Yeah, on re-reading, the âHow is that not a one off of $1bn?â does seem snippy. Okay. Fair cop.
I didnât see it as all that snipey. I think downvotes should be reserved for more severe tonal misdemeanours than this.
Thereâs a bit of difficult balance between necessary policing of tone and engagement with substantive arguments. I think as a rule people tend to talk about tone too much in arguments to the detriment of talking about the substance.