The last Open Thread was in October 2017, so I thought we were overdue for a new one.
Use this thread to post things that are awesome, but not awesome enough to be full posts. This is also a great place to post if you don't have enough karma to post on the main forum.
Consider giving your post a brief title to improve readability.
Sure, but I don't think those are the only options.
Possible alternative option: come up with a granular theory of change; use that theory to inform decision-making.
I think this is basically what MIRI does. As far as I know, MIRI didn't use cost-effectiveness analysis to decide on its research agenda (apart from very zoomed-out astronomical waste considerations).
Instead, it used a chain of theoretical reasoning to arrive at the intervention it's focusing on.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. In what sense is this compatible with your contention that "Any model that includes far-future effects isn't believable because these effects are very difficult to predict accurately"? Is this "chain of theoretical reasoning" a "model that includes far-future effects"?
We do have a fair amount of documentation regarding successful forecasters, see e.g. the book Superforecasting. The most successful forecasters tend to rely less on a single theoretical model and more on... (read more)