others defend higher rate not bc of higher extinction prob but bc of other ethics (eg rawlsianism)
-
:) 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?"
-
and stern isn't an xrisk guy anyway so his actual estimate, /whatever it is/, would just be an educated non-expert estimate
-
so in fact your other data could be used to critique stern: "xrisk experts say your non-expert # is too low"
-
like, it's all a complex epistemic mess. and i'm confused why the FHI/CEA authors still want to use it in light of that
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Okay, I like this advice. A sincere thanks!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also, do you mind if I ask: were you satisfied with the GCF response to your criticism of their report? They seemed...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.