I really appreciated this post and itâs sequel (and await the third in the sequence)! The âsecond mistakeâ was totally new to me, and I hadnât grasped the significance of the âfirst mistakeâ. The post did persuade me that the case for existential risk reduction is less robust than I had previously thought.
One tiny thing. I think this should read âfrom 20% to 10% riskâ:
More rarely, we talk about absolute reductions, which subtract an absolute amount from the current level of risk. It is in this sense that a 10% reduction in risk takes us from 80% to 70% risk, from 20% to 18% risk, or from 10% to 0% risk. (Formally, relative risk reduction by f takes us from risk r to risk r â f).
I really appreciated this post and itâs sequel (and await the third in the sequence)! The âsecond mistakeâ was totally new to me, and I hadnât grasped the significance of the âfirst mistakeâ. The post did persuade me that the case for existential risk reduction is less robust than I had previously thought.
One tiny thing. I think this should read âfrom 20% to 10% riskâ:
Whoops, thanks!