I think another framing/āargument that would also make sense would be something like this: āWe (i.e., longtermists) have substantial uncertainty about when relevant windows of opportunity will arise. As such, the longtermist community should have a portfolio which includes efforts targeted at both nearby windows and further away windows (just as it should have a portfolio which includes efforts targeted at a variety of different risks, technologies, countries, etc.). Simon Institute is focused on windows of opportunity other than extremely nearby existential risks.ā
Yup, the portfolio approach makes a lot of sense to us. Also, as always, thanks for the summary and links!
A big question is how to define āextremely nearbyā. Within the next 5 years, SI should be in a position to directly take meaningful action. Ironically, given SIās starting point, making short-term action the main goal seems like it could make it less likely to attain the necessary capacity. Thereās just no sustainable way in which a new actor can act urgently, as they first have to āstand the test of timeā in the eyes of the established ones.
This sounds reasonable to me.
I think another framing/āargument that would also make sense would be something like this: āWe (i.e., longtermists) have substantial uncertainty about when relevant windows of opportunity will arise. As such, the longtermist community should have a portfolio which includes efforts targeted at both nearby windows and further away windows (just as it should have a portfolio which includes efforts targeted at a variety of different risks, technologies, countries, etc.). Simon Institute is focused on windows of opportunity other than extremely nearby existential risks.ā
(This would be similar to Owen Cotton-Barrattās arguments in this talk. There are also some relevant arguments and sources in my post Crucial questions about the optimal timing of work and donations.)
Yup, the portfolio approach makes a lot of sense to us. Also, as always, thanks for the summary and links!
A big question is how to define āextremely nearbyā. Within the next 5 years, SI should be in a position to directly take meaningful action. Ironically, given SIās starting point, making short-term action the main goal seems like it could make it less likely to attain the necessary capacity. Thereās just no sustainable way in which a new actor can act urgently, as they first have to āstand the test of timeā in the eyes of the established ones.