Thanks for writing this! What I took from it (with some of my own thoughts added):
The ITN framework is a way of breaking down good doneadditional resources into three components —good done% of the problem solved×% of the problem solved% increase in resources×% increase in resourcesadditional resources
As such ITN is one way of estimating good doneadditional resources. But you might sometimes prefer other ways to break it down, because:
Sometimes the units for I,T, or N are ambigious, and that can lead to unit inconsistensies in the same argument, i.e. by equivocating between “effort” and “money”. These inconsistencies can mislead.
The neat factorisation might blind us to the fact that the meaning of ‘good done’ is underspecified, so it could lead us into thinking it is easier or more straightforward than it actually is to compare across disparate causes. Having more specific Xs for Xadditional resources can make it clearer when you are comparing apples and oranges.
ITN invites marginal thinking (you’re being asked to estimate derivatives), but sometimes marginal thinking can mislead, when ‘good done’ is concave with resources.
Maybe most important of all: sometimes there are just much clearer/neater ways to factor the problem, which better carves it at its joints. Let’s not constrain ourselves to one factorisation at the cost of more natural ones!
I should add that I find the “Fermi estimates vs ITN” framing potentially misleading. Maybe “ITN isn’t the only way to do Fermi estimates of impact” is a clearer framing?
Anyway, curious if this all lines up with what you had in mind.
In a world in which people used the ITN as a way to do Fermi estimates of impact, I would have written “ITN isn’t the only way to do Fermi estimates of impact”, but my experience is that people don’t use it this way. I have almost never seen an ITN analysis with a conclusion which looks like “therefore, good doneadditional resources is roughly X lives per dollars” (which is what I care about). But I agree that “Fermi estimates vs ITN” isn’t a good title either: what I argue for is closer to “Fermi estimates (including ITN_as_a_way_to_Fermi_estimate, which sometimes is pretty useful) vs ITN_people_do_in_practice”.
Thanks for writing this! What I took from it (with some of my own thoughts added):
The ITN framework is a way of breaking down good doneadditional resources into three components —good done% of the problem solved×% of the problem solved% increase in resources×% increase in resourcesadditional resources
As such ITN is one way of estimating good doneadditional resources. But you might sometimes prefer other ways to break it down, because:
Sometimes the units for I,T, or N are ambigious, and that can lead to unit inconsistensies in the same argument, i.e. by equivocating between “effort” and “money”. These inconsistencies can mislead.
The neat factorisation might blind us to the fact that the meaning of ‘good done’ is underspecified, so it could lead us into thinking it is easier or more straightforward than it actually is to compare across disparate causes. Having more specific Xs for Xadditional resources can make it clearer when you are comparing apples and oranges.
ITN invites marginal thinking (you’re being asked to estimate derivatives), but sometimes marginal thinking can mislead, when ‘good done’ is concave with resources.
Maybe most important of all: sometimes there are just much clearer/neater ways to factor the problem, which better carves it at its joints. Let’s not constrain ourselves to one factorisation at the cost of more natural ones!
I should add that I find the “Fermi estimates vs ITN” framing potentially misleading. Maybe “ITN isn’t the only way to do Fermi estimates of impact” is a clearer framing?
Anyway, curious if this all lines up with what you had in mind.
This roughly lines up with what I had in mind!
In a world in which people used the ITN as a way to do Fermi estimates of impact, I would have written “ITN isn’t the only way to do Fermi estimates of impact”, but my experience is that people don’t use it this way. I have almost never seen an ITN analysis with a conclusion which looks like “therefore, good doneadditional resources is roughly X lives per dollars” (which is what I care about). But I agree that “Fermi estimates vs ITN” isn’t a good title either: what I argue for is closer to “Fermi estimates (including ITN_as_a_way_to_Fermi_estimate, which sometimes is pretty useful) vs ITN_people_do_in_practice”.
Ok, got it. I’m curious — how do you see people using ITN in practice? (If not for making and comparing estimates of good doneadditional resources?)
Also this post may be relevant!