So itās like a benefit to cost ratio. So I can see with diminishing returns to more money, the benefit to cost ratio could be half. So with $1 million in the early days of EA, we could have $10 million of impact. But now that we have $1 billion, we can have $5 billion of impact. It seems like the latter scenario is still much better. Am I missing something?
No, I meant an intervention that could produce 10x ROI on $1M looked better than an intervention that could produce 5x ROI on $1B, and now the opposite is true (or should be).
So itās like a benefit to cost ratio. So I can see with diminishing returns to more money, the benefit to cost ratio could be half. So with $1 million in the early days of EA, we could have $10 million of impact. But now that we have $1 billion, we can have $5 billion of impact. It seems like the latter scenario is still much better. Am I missing something?
Uhh, Iām not sure if Iām misunderstanding or you are. My original point in the post was supposed to be that the current scenario is indeed better.
Ok, so we agree that having $1 billion is better despite diminishing returns. So I still donāt understand this statement:
Are you saying that in 2011, we would have preferred $1M over $1B? Or does ālook betterā just refer to the benefit to cost ratio?
I think I see the confusion.
No, I meant an intervention that could produce 10x ROI on $1M looked better than an intervention that could produce 5x ROI on $1B, and now the opposite is true (or should be).