Thanks for the clarification, and apologies for missing that in your original comment.

Hi Simon, I want to push back on your claims about markets a bit. 

Markets are great, especially when there are minimal market failures. I love them. They are responsible for a lot of good things. But the first and second fundamental theorems don't conclude that they maximise social welfare. That is a widely held misconception. 

The first concludes that they reach a point on the Pareto frontier, but such a point could be really quite bad. e.g. a great outcome for one person but misery for 8 billion can be Pareto efficient. I'm not sure that extreme outcome is compatible with your specification (as without market failures, perhaps one can say everyone will also be at least as well off as now), but a world where billions are still living in poverty as they are today is definitely compatible with the 1st theorem plus no market failures, yet is definitely not maximising social welfare. 

And the 2nd theorem says that a massive transfer plus markets can reach any Pareto optimal outcome (including a genuinely socially optimal one). However, it is often the transfer that is doing most of the work there, so the conclusion would not be that markets maximise social welfare, but that in combination with a potentially radical redistribution they do.

Whether it is true or not depends on the community and the point I'm making is primarily for EAs (and EA-adjacent people too). It might also be true for the AI safety and governance communities. I don't think it is true in general though — i.e. most citizens and most politicians are not giving too little regard to long timelines. So I'm not sure the point can be made when removing this reference.

Also, I'm particularly focusing on the set of people who are trying to act rationally and altruistically in response to these dangers, and are doing so in a somewhat coordinated manner. e.g. a key aspect is that the portfolio is currently skewed towards the near-term.

The point I'm trying to make is that we should have a probability distribution over timelines with a chance of short, medium or long — then we need to act given this uncertainty, with a portfolio of work based around the different lengths. So even if our median is correct, I think we're failing to do enough work aimed at the 50% of cases that are longer than the median.

I ran a timelines exercise in 2017 with many well known FHI staff (though not including Nick) where the point was to elicit one's current beliefs for AGI by plotting CDFs. Looking at them now, I can tell you our median dates were: 2024, 2032, 2034, 2034, 2034, 2035, 2054, and 2079. So the median of our medians was (robustly) 2034 (i.e. 17 more years time). I was one of the people who had that date, though people didn't see each others' CDFs during the exercise.

I think these have held up well.

So I don't think Eliezer's "Oxford EAs" point is correct.

I've often been frustrated by this assumption over the last 20 years, but don't remember any good pieces about it.

It may be partly from Eliezer's first alignment approach being to create a superintelligent sovereign AI, where if that goes right, other risks really would be dealt with.

Yeah, I mean 'more valuable to prevent', before taking into account the cost and difficulty.

At any rate, merely uncertain catastrophic risks do not have rerun risk, while chancy ones do. 

This is a key point. For many existential risks, the risk is mainly epistemic (i.e. we should assign some probability p to it happening in the next time period), rather than it being objectively chancy. For one-shot decision-making sometimes this distinction doesn't matter, but here it does.

Complicating matters, what is really going on is not just that the probability is one of two types, but that we have a credence distribution over the different levels of objective chance. A pure subjective case is where all our credence is on 0% and 100%, but in many cases we have credences over multiple intermediate risk levels — these cases are neither purely epistemic nor purely objective chance.

The value of saving philanthropic resources to deploy post-superintelligence is greater than it otherwise would be.

One way to think of this is that if there is a 10% existential risk from the superintelligence transition and we will attempt that transition, then the world is currently worth 0.90 V, where V is the expected value of the world after achieving that transition. So the future world is more valuable (in the appropriate long-term sense) and saving it is correspondingly more important. With these numbers the effect isn't huge, but would be important enough to want to take into account.

More generally, worlds where we are almost through the time of perils are substantially more valuable than those where we aren't. And it setback prevention becomes more important the further through you are.