Is there a reason you need to do 50 year plans before you can do 10 year plans?
No.
It’s often worth practising on harder problems to make the smaller problems second nature, and I think this is a similar situation. Nowadays I do more often notice plans that would take 5+ years to complete (that are real plans with hopefully large effect sizes), and I’m trying to push it higher.
Thinking carefully about how things are built that have lasted decades or centuries (science, the American constitution, etc) I think is very helpful for making shorter plans that still require coordination of 1000s of people over 10+ years.
Relatedly I don’t think anyone in this community working on AI risk should be devoting 100% of their probability mass to things in the <15 year scale, and so should think about plans that fail gracefully or are still useful if the world is still muddling along at relatively similar altitudes in 70 years.
No.
It’s often worth practising on harder problems to make the smaller problems second nature, and I think this is a similar situation. Nowadays I do more often notice plans that would take 5+ years to complete (that are real plans with hopefully large effect sizes), and I’m trying to push it higher.
Thinking carefully about how things are built that have lasted decades or centuries (science, the American constitution, etc) I think is very helpful for making shorter plans that still require coordination of 1000s of people over 10+ years.
Relatedly I don’t think anyone in this community working on AI risk should be devoting 100% of their probability mass to things in the <15 year scale, and so should think about plans that fail gracefully or are still useful if the world is still muddling along at relatively similar altitudes in 70 years.
Ah, that all makes sense.