nostalgebraist

bc he uses the same 0.1 # across all compared scenarios. he also doesn't discuss human extinction even in most extreme scenarios

was my basic line of reasoning. But your points are well-taken. Thanks for the clear thinking and feedback.

:) imo that /is/ a good springboard but you don't need stern for it

just say "maybe you think extinction is pretty unlikely, like just 0.1% per yr" and then pull back the curtain . . .

to respond with intellectual integrity. In fact, the entire exchange seemed like a paradigm of good scholarship. Maybe?

i am pleased that they replied and corrected report. not pleased that corrected version still cites stern

stern's # is hard to interpret bc it's a social compromise w researchers who want a way higher # for non-xrisk reasons

stern may well have thought "0.1 is too high as estimate, but i'm already 'pushing it' relative to standard, high # s"

like, all the subsequent debate is about "is it acceptable to set the number to basically zero?"