People often have to choose between options with uncertain outcomes. One way to think about the value of different options is in terms of expected value. The expected value of an action is the sum of the value of each potential outcome multiplied by the probability of that outcome occurring. Expected value is useful for selecting between projects. 

Imagine you're choosing between two medical interventions. The first intervention is a drug that succeeds in 60% of cases, and that gives an extra year of healthy life when it succeeds, and has no impact if it fails.

In the case of this drug, there are only two outcomes: success and failure. So the expected value is:

Suppose another drug succeeds with a 40% probability, and gives two years of healthy life when it succeeds, but causes harm equal to half a year of healthy life lost when it fails. 

Then the expected benefit of this project is: 

Over many cases, the first drug will likely provide more years of healthy life than the second. So if they cost the same, funding the first drug would add more healthy years of life on average.

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Great post. I think it explains the important concept of expected value in a simple way.

How much, how fast, how certain. I feel like this definition of expected value doesn’t have the “how fast” variable in it. Thinking about how fast it would take to administer and deploy one drug over another will also determine how many people you can save (for instance, if drug 1 is readily available at CVS vs drug 2 still needs a year to be approved by the FDA and another year to be available everywhere)

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
titotal
 ·  · 35m read
 · 
None of this article was written with AI assistance. Introduction There have been many, many, many attempts to lay out scenarios of AI taking over or destroying humanity. What they tend to have in common is an assumption that our doom will be sealed as a result of AI becoming significantly smarter and more powerful than the best humans, eclipsing us in skill and power and outplaying us effortlessly. In this article, I’m going to do a twist: I’m going to write a story (and detailed analysis) about a scenario where humanity is disempowered and destroyed by AI that is dumber than us, due to a combination of hype, overconfidence, greed and anti-intellectualism. This is a scenario where instead of AI bringing untold abundance or tiling the universe with paperclips, it brings mediocrity, stagnation, and inequality. This is not a forecast. This story probably won’t happen. But it’s a story that reflects why I am worried about AI, despite being generally dismissive of all those doom stories above. It is accompanied by an extensive, sourced list of present day issues and warning signs that are the source of my fears. This post is divided into 3 parts: Part 1 is my attempt at a plausible sounding science fiction story sketching out this scenario, starting with the decline of a small architecture firm and ending with nuclear Armageddon. In part 2 I will explain, with sources, the real world current day trends that were used as ingredients for the story. In part 3 I will analysise the likelihood of my scenario, why I think it’s very unlikely, but also why it has some clear likelihood advantages over the typical doomsday scenario. The story of Slopworld In the nearish future: When the architecture firm HBM was bought out by the Vastum corporation, they announced that they would fire 99% of their architects and replace them with AI chatbots. The architect-bot they unveiled was incredibly impressive. After uploading your site parameters, all you had to do was chat with
Relevant opportunities
23
· · 3m read