Eight years later, I still think this post is basically correct. My argument is more plausible the more one expects a lot of parts of society to play a role in shaping how the future unfolds. If one believes that a small group of people (who can be identified in advance and who aren’t already extremely well known) will have dramatically more influence over the future than most other parts of the world, then we might expect somewhat larger differences in cost-effectiveness.
Are the top 1% more than 10,000x as efffective as the median
(suggested by @Hauke Hillebrandt here)
Suggested debaters: Brian Tomassik and Daniel
Tomassik:
Daniel:
Link I can’t access https://sci-hub.wf/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/phpe.12133