Have you considered the impact of advanced AI on CEARCH’s cost-effectiveness analyses? Do you think the discount rates, and projections of future burden in CEARCH’s cost-effectiveness analyses are appropriate under Ege Erdil’s median time of 20 years until full automation of remote work? I estimate advocacy for taxing SSBs would become 0.637 % and 3.88 % as cost-effective neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years, although I would not neglect impact even after the full automation of remote work, which I expect to take decades.
We have standard GCR discounts when estimating long term impact, but for AI—we’re generally more sceptical, both on paperclipping and on extremely rosy projections of economic growth. In any case, while there might be a theoretical case for discounting income-based interventions (if you really believe GDP growth is going jump to 10% per annum, we’re obviously moving up the DMR curve more rapidly), there’s much less direct impact on health (in fact, if you think income is going to drastically increase, that makes consumption greater, and the DALY burden of diseases of affluence much worse, and hence preventing them more cost-effective).
Hi Joel,
Have you considered the impact of advanced AI on CEARCH’s cost-effectiveness analyses? Do you think the discount rates, and projections of future burden in CEARCH’s cost-effectiveness analyses are appropriate under Ege Erdil’s median time of 20 years until full automation of remote work? I estimate advocacy for taxing SSBs would become 0.637 % and 3.88 % as cost-effective neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years, although I would not neglect impact even after the full automation of remote work, which I expect to take decades.
Hi Vasco,
We have standard GCR discounts when estimating long term impact, but for AI—we’re generally more sceptical, both on paperclipping and on extremely rosy projections of economic growth. In any case, while there might be a theoretical case for discounting income-based interventions (if you really believe GDP growth is going jump to 10% per annum, we’re obviously moving up the DMR curve more rapidly), there’s much less direct impact on health (in fact, if you think income is going to drastically increase, that makes consumption greater, and the DALY burden of diseases of affluence much worse, and hence preventing them more cost-effective).
Thanks, Joel. That makes sense.