Basically my point is, depending on answers to questions such as the above, you may think a longtermist cause area is WAY better than a shorttermist cause area, or vice versa, and we havenāt even gone near a CEA (which Iām not sure would help matters). I canāt emphasise that āWAYā enough.
I think this is true. I therefore also basically agree with your conclusions, but I think theyāre much less damning than I get the impression you think. Basically, Iād rephrase your second-last paragraph to:
āSo it seems worth noting that this model is probably most/āonly useful for the project of generating and comparing cause candidates within a cause area. E.g., it could be useful for neartermist human-focused stuff, neartermist animal-focused stuff, or longtermist stuff, but probably separately for each.
But that alone shouldnāt prevent this model from being very useful. Thatās because there are a huge number of ideas that could be generated, deconfused, evaluated, and implemented within each broad cause area, so a model that helps us do that for each cause area could be really handy, even if it doesnāt simultaneously help us decide between broad cause areas.ā
Yes, I agree. I actually think this model could work well if we do multiple funnelling exercises, one for each type of cause area.
The only reason I was perhaps slightly forceful in my comment is because from this post and the previous post (Big List of Cause Candidates) I have got the impression that there is going to be a single funnelling exercise that aims to directly compare shorttermist vs longtermist areas including on their āscaleā.
NunoāI donāt want to give the impression that I fundamentally donāt like your idea because I donāt, I just think some care has to be taken.
I have got the impression that there is going to be a single funnelling exercise that aims to directly compare shorttermist vs longtermist areas including on their āscaleā.
Yeah, so I (and others) have been exploring different things, but I donāt know what Iāll end up going with. That said, I think that there are gains to be had in optimizing first two stages, not just the third evaluation stage.
And reading back what I wrote, it was perhaps a little too strong. I would quite happily adopt MichaelAās suggested paragraph in place of my penultimate one!
I think this is true. I therefore also basically agree with your conclusions, but I think theyāre much less damning than I get the impression you think. Basically, Iād rephrase your second-last paragraph to:
āSo it seems worth noting that this model is probably most/āonly useful for the project of generating and comparing cause candidates within a cause area. E.g., it could be useful for neartermist human-focused stuff, neartermist animal-focused stuff, or longtermist stuff, but probably separately for each.
But that alone shouldnāt prevent this model from being very useful. Thatās because there are a huge number of ideas that could be generated, deconfused, evaluated, and implemented within each broad cause area, so a model that helps us do that for each cause area could be really handy, even if it doesnāt simultaneously help us decide between broad cause areas.ā
Yes, I agree. I actually think this model could work well if we do multiple funnelling exercises, one for each type of cause area.
The only reason I was perhaps slightly forceful in my comment is because from this post and the previous post (Big List of Cause Candidates) I have got the impression that there is going to be a single funnelling exercise that aims to directly compare shorttermist vs longtermist areas including on their āscaleā.
NunoāI donāt want to give the impression that I fundamentally donāt like your idea because I donāt, I just think some care has to be taken.
Yeah, so I (and others) have been exploring different things, but I donāt know what Iāll end up going with. That said, I think that there are gains to be had in optimizing first two stages, not just the third evaluation stage.
Absolutely, every stage is important.
And reading back what I wrote, it was perhaps a little too strong. I would quite happily adopt MichaelAās suggested paragraph in place of my penultimate one!