Ideally, someone who is an expert both in economic growth theory and existential risk would do a really deep analysis of the model presented in the paper, but in the absence of this we feel that giving our thoughts on this is useful.
Do you still believe this is the case? Any updates on the relevance etc?
Presumably the referees will constitute experts on the growth front at least (if it’s not desk rejected everywhere!), though the new version is general enough that it doesn’t really rely on any particular claims about growth theory.
Do you still believe this is the case? Any updates on the relevance etc?
Hey David, I’ve just finished a rewrite of the paper which I’m hoping to submit soon, which I hope does a decent job of both simplifying it and making clearer what the applications and limitations are: https://philiptrammell.com/static/Existential_Risk_and_Growth.pdf
Presumably the referees will constitute experts on the growth front at least (if it’s not desk rejected everywhere!), though the new version is general enough that it doesn’t really rely on any particular claims about growth theory.