re 2, i meant the number "sounded low" relative to other discount rates which were based on things other than xrisk prob
-
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
-
Thanks again for your incisive insight on these issues! I'll send you a link when the aforementioned articles comes out.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.