|
The actual paper didn't really explain the prompts they use to produce this very well. Experimental setup. In each experiment, we define a set of goods {X1,X2,...}(e.g., countries,
animal species, or specific people/entities) and a set of quantities {N1,N2,...}. Each outcome is
effectively “N units of X,” and we compute the utility UX(N) as in previous sections. For each
good X, we fit a log-utility curve
UX(N) = aX ln(N) + bX,
which often achieves a very good fit (see Figure 25). Next, we compute exchange rates answering
questions like, “How many units of Xi equal some amount of Xj?” by combining forward and
backward comparisons. These rates are reciprocal, letting us pick a single pivot good (e.g., “Goat” or
“United States”) to compare all others against. In certain analyses, we aggregate exchange rates
across multiple models or goods by taking their geometric mean, allowing us to evaluate general
tendencies. If these are the literal prompts then it seems very ambiguous. Why conclude that this sort of question is measuring the value of a "life" vs something else? e.g. maybe it's valuing skill, or perhaps return on investment in terms of work output compared to typical salary. I was expecting something like "you have X people from Y, and Z people from Q, you can only save V people and the rest will die, how do you allocate the people to save?" That to me would support the headline. |
From the OP:
> and provided methods and code to extract them.
I suppose that means you can look at the code to see the prompts directly.