Have you by any chance seen this? (It's not published yet, but I read it a year ago and thought it was quite good, as far as I can judge such things).

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to shoot me a message.

Two-by-two for possibly important aspects of reality and related end-states:

Hello again, I put your consideration into this section. Basically, if you trust yourself completely & are younger than 26 years, wait until you're 26 (but the benefit is tiny), otherwise, it's still optimal to sign up now.

I just updated my cryonics cost-benefit analysis with

• a general Caveats section
• incorporating the Quality of Cryopreservation for different age groups
• some more Caveats on Future Life Years specifically on discounting future life years & putting diminishing returns on future life years

along with some small fixes and additions.

The basic result has not changed, though. It's still worth it.

Thoughts on Fillers Neglect Framers in the context of LW.

• LW seems to have more framers as opposed to fillers
• This is because
  • framing probably has slightly higher status (framing posts get referenced more often, since they create useful concept handles)
  • framing requires more intelligence as opposed to meticulous research, and because most LWers are hobbyists, they don't really have a lot of time for research
  • there is no institutional outside pressure to create more fillers (except high status fillers such as Gwern)
• The rate of fillers to framers seems to have increased since LWs inception (I am least confident in this claim)
  • Perhaps this is a result of EY leaving behind a relatively accepted frame
• I am probably in the 25th percentile-ish of intelligence among LWers, and enjoy researching and writing filling posts. Therefore, my comparative advantage is probably writing filling type posts as opposed to framing ones.

Ugh, I should pay more attention.

An angle that's interesting (though only tangentially connected with climate change) is how civilizations deal with waste heat.

I would really like to see estimates of the cost of climate change, along with their probabilities. A paper I found is this one, but it is not quite up to the standard I have. It states that 1 bio. humans will die counterfactually due to climate change.

Also, the probabilities given for human extinction from climate change are quite low in comparison to other risks (8% for 10% human population decline from climate disaster conditional on such decline occuring, 1% (probably even less) on 95% decline till 2100).

Current belief: Something (nuclear war, biological catastrophe, unaligned AI, something else entirely) will either get humanity before climate change does (27%), humanity gets through and grows insanely quickly (Roodman 2020) (33%), neither happens & basically status quo with more droughts, famines, poverty, small scale wars etc. due to climate change, which cause several hundred million/few billion deaths over next centuries, but don't let humanity go extinct (17%), something else entirely (23%) (scenarios fitting very loosely onto reality, probabilities are intuition after calibration training).

My personal opinion: climate change (and more directly, conflict caused or exacerbated by it) is the single biggest risk to human-like intelligence flourishing in the galaxy - very likely that it's a large component of the Great Filter.

I don't think that the idea of the Great Filter fits very well here. The Great Filter would be something so universal that it eliminates ~100% of all civilizations. Climate change seems to be conditional on a number of factors specific to earth, e.g. carbon-based life, green-house gas effects, interdependent civilization etc., that it doesn't really work well as a factor that eliminates nearly all civilizations at a specific level of development.