I would also try to squeeze in a few words about dead-ends that EA-minded econ theory students often seem to wander down (like why trying to understand and make something x-risk-relevant out of thesepapers is a waste of time!).
Can you elaborate on this?
This is a sincere question—I think your thoughts will be useful and interesting.
Sure. Those particular papers rely on a mathematical trick that only lets you work out how much a society should be willing to pay to avoid proportional losses in consumption. It turns out to be different from what to do in the x-risk case in lots of important ways, and the trick is not generalizable in those ways. But because the papers seem so close to being x-risk-relevant, I know of like half a dozen EA econ students (including me) who have tried extending them at some point before giving up…
I’m aware of at least a few other “common EA econ theorist dead ends” of this sort, and I’ll try making a list, along something written about each of them. When this and the rest of the course material is done, I’ll post it.
Can you elaborate on this?
This is a sincere question—I think your thoughts will be useful and interesting.
Sure. Those particular papers rely on a mathematical trick that only lets you work out how much a society should be willing to pay to avoid proportional losses in consumption. It turns out to be different from what to do in the x-risk case in lots of important ways, and the trick is not generalizable in those ways. But because the papers seem so close to being x-risk-relevant, I know of like half a dozen EA econ students (including me) who have tried extending them at some point before giving up…
I’m aware of at least a few other “common EA econ theorist dead ends” of this sort, and I’ll try making a list, along something written about each of them. When this and the rest of the course material is done, I’ll post it.
I’ve tried extending Martin and Pindyck 2015 too, and it feels reassuring to know others have failed at this before me :)
A list of “common EA econ theorist dead ends” sounds very interesting.
Hah, sorry to hear that! But thanks for sharing—good to have yet more evidence on this front...!