The Nonlinear Library EA - Rethink's CURVE Sequence - The Good and the Gaps by Jack Malde
Nov 28, 2023
16:37
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Rethink's CURVE Sequence - The Good and the Gaps, published by Jack Malde on November 28, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
(Also posted to my substack The Ethical Economist: a blog covering Economics, Ethics and Effective Altruism.)
Rethink Priorities'
Worldview Investigation Team recently published their
CURVE Sequence: "Causes and Uncertainty: Rethinking Value in Expectation." The aim of the sequence was to:
Consider alternatives to expected value maximization (EVM) for cause prioritization, motivated by some unintuitive consequences of EVM. The alternatives considered were incorporating risk aversion, and contractualism.
Explore the practical implications of a commitment to EVM and, in particular, if it supports prioritizing existential risk (x-risk) mitigation over all else.
I found the sequence thought-provoking. It opened my eyes to the fact that x-risk mitigation may only be astronomically valuable under certain contentious conditions. I still prefer risk-neutral EVM (with some reasonable uncertainty), but am now less certain that this clearly implies a focus on prioritizing x-risk mitigation.
Having said that, the sequence wasn't conclusive and it would take more research for me to determine that x-risk reduction shouldn't be the top priority for the EA community. This post summarizes some of my reflections on the sequence.
Summary of posts in the sequence
In
Causes and Uncertainty: Rethinking Value in Expectation, Bob Fischer introduces the sequence. The motivation for considering alternatives to EVM is due to the unintuitive consequence of the theory that the highest EV option needn't be one where success is at all likely.
In
If Contractualism, Then AMF, Bob Fischer considers contractualism as an alternative to EVM. Under contractualism, the surest global health and development (GHD) work beats out x-risk mitigation and most animal welfare work, even if the latter options have higher EV.
In
How Can Risk Aversion Affect Your Cause Prioritization?, Laura Duffy considers how different risk attitudes affect cause prioritization. The results are complex and nuanced, but one key finding is that spending on corporate cage-free campaigns for egg-laying hens is robustly cost-effective under nearly all reasonable types and levels of risk aversion considered. Otherwise, prioritization depends on type and level of risk aversion.
In
How bad would human extinction be?, Arvo Muñoz Morán investigates the value of x-risk mitigation efforts under different risk assumptions. The persistence of an x-risk intervention - the risk mitigation's duration - plays a key role in determining how valuable the intervention is. The rate of value growth is also pivotal, with only cubic and logistic growth (which may be achieved through interplanetary expansion) giving astronomical value to x-risk mitigation.
In
Charting the precipice: The time of perils and prioritizing x-risk, David Rhys Bernard considers various premises underlying the
time of perils hypothesis which may be pivotal to the case for x-risk mitigation. All the premises are controversial to varying degrees so it seems reasonable to assign a low credence to this version of the time of perils. Justifying x-risk mitigation based on the time of perils hypothesis may require being
fanatical.
In
Uncertainty over time and Bayesian updating, David Rhys Bernard estimates how quickly uncertainty about the impact of an intervention increases as the time horizon of the prediction increases. He shows that a Bayesian should put decreasing weight on longer-term estimates. Importantly, he uses data from various development economics randomized controlled trials, and it is unclear to me how much the conclusions might generalize to other interventions.
In
The Risks and Rewards of Prioritizing Animals of Uncertain Sentience, Hayley Clutte...
(Also posted to my substack The Ethical Economist: a blog covering Economics, Ethics and Effective Altruism.)
Rethink Priorities'
Worldview Investigation Team recently published their
CURVE Sequence: "Causes and Uncertainty: Rethinking Value in Expectation." The aim of the sequence was to:
Consider alternatives to expected value maximization (EVM) for cause prioritization, motivated by some unintuitive consequences of EVM. The alternatives considered were incorporating risk aversion, and contractualism.
Explore the practical implications of a commitment to EVM and, in particular, if it supports prioritizing existential risk (x-risk) mitigation over all else.
I found the sequence thought-provoking. It opened my eyes to the fact that x-risk mitigation may only be astronomically valuable under certain contentious conditions. I still prefer risk-neutral EVM (with some reasonable uncertainty), but am now less certain that this clearly implies a focus on prioritizing x-risk mitigation.
Having said that, the sequence wasn't conclusive and it would take more research for me to determine that x-risk reduction shouldn't be the top priority for the EA community. This post summarizes some of my reflections on the sequence.
Summary of posts in the sequence
In
Causes and Uncertainty: Rethinking Value in Expectation, Bob Fischer introduces the sequence. The motivation for considering alternatives to EVM is due to the unintuitive consequence of the theory that the highest EV option needn't be one where success is at all likely.
In
If Contractualism, Then AMF, Bob Fischer considers contractualism as an alternative to EVM. Under contractualism, the surest global health and development (GHD) work beats out x-risk mitigation and most animal welfare work, even if the latter options have higher EV.
In
How Can Risk Aversion Affect Your Cause Prioritization?, Laura Duffy considers how different risk attitudes affect cause prioritization. The results are complex and nuanced, but one key finding is that spending on corporate cage-free campaigns for egg-laying hens is robustly cost-effective under nearly all reasonable types and levels of risk aversion considered. Otherwise, prioritization depends on type and level of risk aversion.
In
How bad would human extinction be?, Arvo Muñoz Morán investigates the value of x-risk mitigation efforts under different risk assumptions. The persistence of an x-risk intervention - the risk mitigation's duration - plays a key role in determining how valuable the intervention is. The rate of value growth is also pivotal, with only cubic and logistic growth (which may be achieved through interplanetary expansion) giving astronomical value to x-risk mitigation.
In
Charting the precipice: The time of perils and prioritizing x-risk, David Rhys Bernard considers various premises underlying the
time of perils hypothesis which may be pivotal to the case for x-risk mitigation. All the premises are controversial to varying degrees so it seems reasonable to assign a low credence to this version of the time of perils. Justifying x-risk mitigation based on the time of perils hypothesis may require being
fanatical.
In
Uncertainty over time and Bayesian updating, David Rhys Bernard estimates how quickly uncertainty about the impact of an intervention increases as the time horizon of the prediction increases. He shows that a Bayesian should put decreasing weight on longer-term estimates. Importantly, he uses data from various development economics randomized controlled trials, and it is unclear to me how much the conclusions might generalize to other interventions.
In
The Risks and Rewards of Prioritizing Animals of Uncertain Sentience, Hayley Clutte...