> We find that the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one billionth of one billionth of one percentage point is worth a hundred billion times as much as a billion human lives [in the present]
Good luck parsing that claim on the first try. Reducing the probability of extinction by 1/1000000000^2% is worth 1000000000 human lives? Ok so I guess you’re trying to say 1 human life is worth a billionth of a percent chance of extinction.
The author here isn’t exactly praising this perspective but has the audacity to write
> Hey, maths doesn’t lie
Which is utterly idiotic and such a misleading thing to say. This isn’t math, it’s a thick layer of hand wavey assumptions and tiny sprinkling of math to throw it together.
It’s not like we have any way of actually forming any probability distributions of outcomes for the unforseeable future outcomes so the whole thing is moot. In general however, short term prosperity is likely to compound into better outcomes more than anything.
As I understood it, 'Hey, math doesn't lie' was a sarcastic jab to point out how ridiculous it would be to believe the argument just because it contains a calculation.
> Hey, maths doesn’t lie, so I guess that means okay to sacrifice a billion people or so. Unless possibly you’re one of them.
Implies to me he is implying the math is sound but has a different problem.
> But I don’t want to be unfair, Bostrom’s magnificent paper also has a figure to support his argument that I don’t want to withhold from you, here we go, I hope that explains it all.
This comment seems very demeaning towards the math though so I can’t really tell
yeah it's probably 'she' not 'he' for this particular person but whatever.
No the point being made is more like that you can compute something doesn't mean you're right even if your math is correct. That goes for a lot of physics and also for a lot of statistics. Second the conclusion drawn by Bostrom et al is hilarious in a very bad way, and also completely beyond science and mathematics. Third, the argumentation is also ridiculous b/c in history as in weather and a lot of other fields we're dealing with a highly dynamic, basically chaotic system. Fourth, we can't predict what the future will be like in a year or in ten years, but here there's a bunch of rich technocrats who want me to swallow that it's OK to sacrifice hundreds and hundreds of millions of people for the greater good of mankind in a billion years? Bro do you even count? You don't even know how a big a number a billion is, and I can't tell you either. Lastly, these people are throwing around their assumption-laden probabilistic formulas like there's no tomorrow [pun intended]. Fact is we can't be sure of any of the assumptions or their probabilities, nor what they mean. People already get stuck with everyday tasks of risk assessment.
> seems very demeaning towards the math
Get over it. It's OK to ridicule the math of someone who makes an absurd argument and abuses the math for dangerous, delusional and nefarious purposes, as the longtermers do. This is fascism in every way but name.
Good luck parsing that claim on the first try. Reducing the probability of extinction by 1/1000000000^2% is worth 1000000000 human lives? Ok so I guess you’re trying to say 1 human life is worth a billionth of a percent chance of extinction.
The author here isn’t exactly praising this perspective but has the audacity to write
> Hey, maths doesn’t lie
Which is utterly idiotic and such a misleading thing to say. This isn’t math, it’s a thick layer of hand wavey assumptions and tiny sprinkling of math to throw it together.
It’s not like we have any way of actually forming any probability distributions of outcomes for the unforseeable future outcomes so the whole thing is moot. In general however, short term prosperity is likely to compound into better outcomes more than anything.