In case anyone is interested, here's a spreadsheet I just created that computes the daily costs, after arbitrarily many years, of reviewing a deck which has been growing by a constant number of cards per year.
An interesting implication is that after three years one has incurred roughly 50% of the total time costs of reviewing a card, assuming a time horizon of 50 years. So if Michal keeps adding new cards at the same pace, his daily costs will converge to 390.5=78 minutes. Still, it will take another 12 years for the costs to increase by another 50%, so even after 15 years his daily costs will be 390.75=52 minutes.
You say you've been using Anki for ~3 years and have 37k cards. Assuming you've been adding cards at a roughly constant rate over this period, that's ~12.3k cards per year, or ~34 cards per day. Relying on Piotr Wozniak's formula for approximating the daily time costs of studying a single card in a given year
we can see that it costs 2.03E-03 mins to study a card the 1st year, 7.40E-04 mins the 2nd year, and 4.18E-04 mins the 3rd year. Multiplying by 12.3k, we get about 25, 9 and 5 minutes for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years, respectively. So, on your 3rd (most recent) year of study, this calculation indicates that you should be spending about 25+9+5=39 minutes per day in reviews. Does this match your experience?
I was motivated to calculate this because upon reading your post I felt that reviewing so many cards would impose very high time costs. But after crunching the numbers, the costs seem considerably lower that I expected.
I had visited Berkeley around that time, and word was out about a new prediction that the singularity was only 15 years ahead.
Can you say more about this?
I've been collecting a list of postmortem/retrospective posts on LessWrong
Is this list publicly available? A search for 'postmortems' on your user page produced no results.
Actually, re-reading the post I think that by 'parts' you didn't necessarily mean 'temporal parts'. In particular, your example of Alice suggests that in that case, the 'parts' in question are 'people'. Broome has a parallel view to 'separability of times', called 'separability of lives' and discussed in ch. 8 of Weighing Lives, which corresponds to this use of 'parts'.
John Broome calls this view 'separability of times' in Weighing Lives, ch. 7.
(Pedantic quibble: the reductionist thesis you define can't claim that the value of a world history is equal to the value of its parts; it should claim that the value of a world history is equal to the sum of the value of its parts—or, if you don't want to commit to additivity, that it is a function of the value of its parts.)
John Maxwell makes a couple of good points in a comment about the linked post on the EA Forum:
I'd be interested to know how people think long-range forecasting is likely to differ from short-range forecasting, and to what degree we can apply findings from short-range forecasting to long-range forecasting. Could it be possible to, for example, ask forecasters to forecast at a variety of short-range timescales, fit a curve to their accuracy as a function of time (or otherwise try to mathematically model the "half-life" of the knowledge powering the forecast--I don't know what methodologies could be useful here, maybe survival analysis?) and extrapolate this model to long-range timescales?
I'm also curious why there isn't more interest in presenting people with historical scenarios and asking them to forecast what will happen next in the historical scenario. Obviously if they already know about that period of history this won't work, but that seems possible to overcome.
Does anyone know of examples in the academic literature of "retrodictions" being used to assess forecasting accuracy?
I love the idea. Some questions and their associated resolution dates may be of interest to the wider community of forecasters, so you could post them to Metaculus. Otherwise you could perhaps persuade the Metaculus admins to create a subforum, similar to ai.metaculus.com, for the other questions to be posted. Since Metaculus already has the subforum functionality, it seems a good idea to extend it in this way (perhaps a user's subforum could be associated with the corresponding username: e.g. user kokotajlo can post his own questions at kokotajlo.metaculus.com).
Ah! I interpreted your 'Edit note' as replacing the original comment and noting that its contents had been turned into a post. In other words, I didn't understand you were referring to Evan's post, but thought instead that the comment was self-referential. Maybe 'Admin note' is more appropriate for these comments? In any case, not very important.
[Writing this four months after habryka's comment was published.] I'm confused. I don't see any 'chain link', other than the usual permalink between the timestamp and the karma score. Evan did say that the icon was very small, but at least on my computer, the icon is not merely hard to see—it's invisible.
I'm mentioning this primarily because it's potential evidence of a bug in the code, which the admins may want to fix. But I'm also personally interested in the post to which the original comment refers.