6Joined Jan 2018


Heads up that it's still in the headline version - though I think as an average it's fine and useful to include. 

Amazing. Quick comments on "how much is spent" (GDP). 

  • At first glance this looks like nominal GDP, not adjusted for changes in prices. That's more literally "how much is spent" but less informative about how people's welfare and capabilities are changing over time.

Can someone tell me things about when I should expect the next doubling, i.e. in what year should I expect daily global spending to exceed $526 billion? Feels complicated and important; I’m ignorant about what sensible projections are and how much uncertainty there is.

Will any of the lectures/talks not be recorded? It would be nice if Swapcard could indicate this.

I think that complex cluelessness implies we should be very skeptical of interventions whose claim to cost-effectiveness is through their direct, proximate effects. As has been well argued elsewhere, the long-term effects of these actions probably dominate. 

In my reading, the 80,000 Hours article in the link does not fully support this claim. In the section "Can we actually influence the future," it identifies four ways actions today can influence the long-term future. But it doesn't provide a solid case about why most interventions would  influence the long-term future, rather than having their effects dissipate over time. 

I didn't see any molluscs here. Would you consider adding a mollusc?

Fabulous! This is extremely good to know and it's also quite a relief!

Do the expected values of the output probability distributions equal the point estimates that GiveWell gets from their non-probabilistic estimates? If not, how different are they?

More generally, are there any good write-ups about when and how the expected value of a model with multiple random variables differs from the same model filled out with the expected value of each of its random variables?

(I didn't find the answer skimming through, but it might be there already--sorry!)