= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
solipsist comments on Certificates of Impact [Paul Christiano; Link] - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (9)
Problems of wealthy possible futures will be valued over problems of poor possible futures. The future philanthropy Hedonism Bots for People Who Can Afford Only 7 Hedonism Bots will pay billions for a Certificate of slightly improving the Orgasmotron. The future philanthropy Zombie Control Initiative can barely afford to give a holder of the Certificate of Inventing the Vaccine against the Z-virus one of the last remaining can of spam. Current market prices of those two certificates will reflect their future value.
EDIT: I now think the thesis of this comment is incorrect
I did my math wrong. The present value of the billions paid for a Certificate of slightly improving the Orgasmotron is less than the present value of the can of spam, because you have to value these securities against the rest of your portfolio. You will use a high discount rate for the hedonism world, and a negative discount rate for the zombie apocalypse world. (At least that's how I think of it)
I don't think this is true. Suppose world A is rich and world B is poor. People want resources more in world B, so they are not willing to pay as many resources for a certificate. But on the flip side, a philanthropist is happy to accept fewer resources. That is, a resource that pays $1 (real) in world B, costs more than a resource that pays $1 (real) in world A, because it's catastrophe insurance. This seems to exactly offset the decreased willingness to pay of people in world B.
(Of course, wealthier worlds might also devote a larger share of their resources to philanthropy, and so for that reason might be better to support, though by a much smaller factor. This proposal allows such worlds to reap benefits from their increased philanthropic spending, while poorer worlds can't do so. We could prevent this inequality by leveling down, but I don't see why we should.)