Even if future people matter .001% as much as present people, the argument for SL goes through.  

Also, it just seems bizarre that the moral importance of a person would depend on when in time they exist.  If someone time-traveled back from the future to the present, would it start being 100x worse for them to stub their toe? 

I'm not sure I quite get what you're saying.  The point is just that if actions have positive EV and impact on the order of 10^50 lives potentially, that is very likely to swamp other positive actions.  

So cool!

Awesome post!

Note the U.S. hasn't had 10+% GDP growth since the great depression.  But yeah I'd be happy to take some bets about this--north of 5% for instance.

Weirdly aggressive reply.  

First of all, the AI 2027 people disagree about the numbers.  Lifland's median is nearer to 2031.  I have a good amount of uncertainty, so I wouldn't be shocked if, say, we don't get the intelligence explosion for a decadeish.  

"you've predicted a 95-trillion-fold increase in AI research capacity under a 'conservative scenario.'" is false. I was just giving that as an example of the rapid exponential growth.  

So the answer, in short, is that I'm not very confident in extremely rapid growth within the next few years.  I'd probably put +10% GDP growth by 2029 below 50%.  

Sure.  I'd bet that in the next 15 years the U.S. will have 10+% GDP growth in at least one year.   

Less sure about pre 2028 bets. 

I meant why the low probability of bee sentience.

Out of curiosity, why so low? 

Want to come on the podcast and argue about the person-affecting view?