# Quantifying Existential Risk: A Novel Framework for Cost-Effectiveness > Coverage of lessw-blog **Published:** March 24, 2026 **Author:** PSEEDR Editorial **Category:** risk **Tags:** Existential Risk, AI Safety, Grantmaking, Cost-Effectiveness, Effective Altruism **Canonical URL:** https://pseedr.com/risk/quantifying-existential-risk-a-novel-framework-for-cost-effectiveness --- A recent post on lessw-blog introduces a quantitative framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of existential risk interventions, proposing a universal future-improvement unit to bring moneyball rigor to philanthropic grantmaking. In a recent post, lessw-blog discusses a novel quantitative framework designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of philanthropic interventions, particularly those focused on existential risks such as artificial intelligence takeover. As philanthropic efforts increasingly target long-term, high-stakes domains like AI safety and biosecurity, the challenge of measuring impact becomes exponentially harder. Traditional grantmaking often struggles to quantify abstract, probabilistic outcomes, leaving a significant gap in how resources are prioritized. This topic is critical because effective risk mitigation relies heavily on allocating capital where it can achieve the highest marginal impact. lessw-blog's post explores these dynamics, suggesting that current grantmaking is only partially competent at moneyball-the practice of rigorously quantifying impact to find undervalued opportunities. The author argues that there is a substantial alpha opportunity in putting accurate numbers on complex, long-term outcomes to improve decision-making. To address this measurement gap, the author proposes a universal unit of goodness called 1% future-improvement. This unit is anchored on a theoretical value scale where the expected value (EV) of the multiverse is set at 100, and the EV if the Sun were to go supernova immediately is set at 0. A 1% future-improvement represents a shift from 100 to 101 on this scale, providing a baseline to compare vastly different types of interventions. Applying this framework to the realm of artificial intelligence, the author calculates that decreasing the probability of an AI takeover by a single percentage point (for example, reducing the risk from 40% to 39%) is worth 1.7% future-improvement. Furthermore, magically eliminating the risk of AI takeover entirely is valued at a massive 70% future-improvement. To make this actionable for funders, the proposed default unit for evaluating financial cost-effectiveness is 1% future-improvement per $5 billion. This provides a standardized metric to compare diverse donation opportunities, allowing grantmakers to convert various strategic desiderata into a single, comparable number. While the precise definitions of the multiverse's expected value and the specific assumptions underlying the $5 billion benchmark require further unpacking, the core thesis represents a significant step toward rigorous impact measurement. For funders, researchers, and strategists operating in the AI safety and existential risk space, this framework offers a provocative and potentially highly useful tool for resource allocation. By attempting to standardize the measurement of abstract future improvements, the author provides a fresh perspective on how we might prioritize global interventions. We highly recommend reviewing the complete analysis to understand the mathematical models and assumptions driving these calculations. [Read the full post](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eLcjjXcmFE32jf5FJ/my-cost-effectiveness-unit) to explore the mechanics of this proposed cost-effectiveness unit. ### Key Takeaways * Current grantmaking in existential risk lacks rigorous moneyball quantification, presenting an opportunity for better impact measurement. * The author introduces 1% future-improvement as a universal unit of goodness, based on a scale tied to the expected value of the multiverse. * Decreasing the probability of an AI takeover by 1% is calculated to be worth 1.7% future-improvement. * The framework proposes a default cost-effectiveness benchmark of 1% future-improvement per $5 billion to standardize diverse donation opportunities. [Read the original post at lessw-blog](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eLcjjXcmFE32jf5FJ/my-cost-effectiveness-unit) --- ## Sources - https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eLcjjXcmFE32jf5FJ/my-cost-effectiveness-unit