= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?
Don't let your minds be killed, but I was wondering if there were any existential risk angles to the coming American election (if there isn't, then I'll simply retreat to raw, enjoyable and empty tribalism).
I can see three (quite tenuous) angles:
- Obama seems more likely to attempt to get some sort of global warming agreement. While not directly related to Xrisks per se, this would lead to better global coordination and agreement, which improves the outlook for a lot of other Xrisks. However, pretty unlikely to succeed.
- I have a mental image that Republicans would be more likely to invest in space exploration. This is a lot due to Newt Gingrich, I have to admit, and to the closeness between civilian and military space projects, the last of which are more likely to get boosts in Republican governments.
- If we are holding out for increased population rationality as being a helping factor for some Xrisks, then the fact the the Republicans have gone so strongly anti-science is certainly a bad sign. But on the other hand, its not clear whether them winning or losing the election is more likely to improve the general environment for science among their supporters.
But these all seem weak factors. So, less wronger, let me know: are the things I should care about in the election, or can I just lie back and enjoy it as a piece of interesting theatre?
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (213)
As a non-USian, my main interest in the election is watching the numbers go up and down on Nate Silver's blog.
May I suggest Intrade as a pasttime?
I was under the impression from reading stuff Gwern wrote that Intrade was a bit expensive unless you were using it a lot. Also, even assuming I made money on it, wouldn't I be liable for tax? I intend to give owning shares via a self-select ISA a go.
If Intrade were an efficient market that made use of all of the information in the world, that would be true. People make enough bad bets often enough that it's not too hard to find predictions that are obviously priced wrong.
Global coordination and agreement improves the outlook for some existential risks; damages the outlook for others.
Putting aside for a moment the question of whether Obama or Romney is more awful in general: Obama has actually been relatively good at space policy. Gingrich probably would have been able to do better, but if the current crop of Republican congressmen was in charge, SpaceX et. al. would have been shut out long ago in favor of more pork for solid rocket booster companies.
"Lie back and enjoy it" really isn't on the table, but "don't worry about the things you can't change" might be decent applicable advice.
Stuart, there are now apparently monthly politics discussion threads. In future you could tuck something like this in one of those.
Possibly. I wasn't really that interested in the politics, just wondering whether there was an Xrisk angle I hadn't noticed.
The threads are intended for such nonstandard discussions of politics, not color wars.
Ok. I'll bear that in mind in future.
Which administration is less likely to increase Peter Thiel's taxes?
I'm fairly certain he is spending it better than the USG. Considering what kind of charity he spends it on, it doesn't seem like he gives to charity to get tax brakes or buy status for bragging at cocktail parties. I'm fairly sure a richer Peter Thiel translates into a better less existential risk exposed world.
Edited: People don't seem to be following my Peter Thiel link, it goes to the Top Donors for the Singularity Institute:
Do the rest of the people paying comparable taxes to Peter Thiel also spend their money in such a 'responsible' manner?
I'd actually be surprised if Thiel's marginal tax rate strongly influences the amount he contributes to SIAI. For one, I don't think the reason he donated $1,100,000 rather than twice that amount was that it was the most he could afford.
I'd be even more surprised (even given the above) if the resulting change has more effect on humanity's future than the other effects of differences in tax policy.
I think you would also have to consider the effect on Thiel's income. It's possible (for instance) that Obama would increase his tax rate but also increase his income enough to cover this.
Since I think both Obama and Romney are proposing policies which are bad for the economy, and since I'm not really an expert in economic policy, I don't actually have a strong opinion on which how the election would affect Thiel's income. But it definitely must be considered.
In that case I suppose we should let Thiel tell us who to vote for.
Not necessarily, even if the effect on Thiel's income is my only consideration.
For one thing, Thiel might recommend candidate A over B because he calculates expected income under A > expected income under B, but I might consider Thiel's expected income calculations incorrect and believe EI(B) > EI(A), in which case I would vote for B.
For another, Thiel might recommend A over B because he values other things more than EI... for example, maybe B is a Mormon and Thiel really hates Mormons. In which case Thiel's endorsement of A would not be strong evidence that I should vote for A.
Etc.
In fact, even by novalis' reasoning, we don't care about Thiel's income, we care about the size of Thiel's donations to SIAI. If Thiel credibly precommits to donating N to SIAI if candidate A wins, and 2N if B wins, then in this case I should vote for B, even if everyone agrees that A will maximize Thiel's income.
Well, that's only if we think the marginal effects of policy changes on SAIA donors' income would be greater than any other difference between the candidates in terms of effects on the world. I think this is pretty unlikely.
Good point. This seems to be a pro-Romney argument.
But the existential risk argument seems tenuous - does Thiel contribute to SIAI, for instance? If not, who does contribute?
To such an extent that yesterday someone felt compelled to point out that he only contributes "maybe half or less" of SIAI's budget.
Thanks for letting me know!
He is an SIAI advisor, and I believe the largest donor.
http://singularity.org/topdonors/
I'm surprised you've left out nukes. Nukes are basically the only existential risk angle that presidents have direct control over and where the personality of the POTUS would effect the outcome.
1) Which one is more likely to engage in a nuclear preemptive strike?
2) Which one is less likely to forgive a 'finger slip'? (Ex, a fuse breaks in Russia/China/whoever and they alpha-strike the US; which person is more likely to retaliate and end the world vs not retaliate and suffer US extinction without punishing them back?)
3) Which one has less fear of human extinction? Religiosity and belief in anthropogenic changes to the state of the world seem to be relevant factors.
4) Which one is more likely to launch a preemptive strike against a facility that's building a bio-weapon which if unleashed could destroy mankind?
That seems to be a wash. Romney has the rhetoric, Obama the history of drone strikes on various targets.
Note that what we want isn't just a President who would be likely to forgive a "finger slip", but a President who is believed by other nuclear powers to be unlikely to forgive one. I'm not sure it's possible to deliberately select that combination.
I'm reasonably confident that the percentage of people I consider unlikely to forgive a finger slip who have that combination is higher than the percentage of people I consider likely to forgive a finger slip.
Those all seem to push in the Obama direction, then...
Well, those were the salient ones. If you would like some romney-direction examples, there's the amount of resources used to prevent nuclear proliferation, and of course deterrence, the opposite of Xachariah's #2.
Robin Hanson recently wrote a relevant article on our sister site Overcoming Bias. I must insist that anyone who wants to comment it to read the whole thing and be familiar with the material he cites and links to, but for those who are just seeking a low cost conclusions from a vetted rationalists like him, the last paragraph summary:
Why do you think space exploration matters? Self-sustaining space colonization is decades away, and wouldn't help against UFAI. OTOH, it might help in the case of global war, if there are some colonies that all sides are nice enough not to attack.
I can't think of any risks that space colonization helps against that deep underground colonies wouldn't, though space colonization has the huge advantage of being much more popular.
(Also, asteroid mining is a WMD and might increase x-risk for that reason. On the other hand, cheaper more abundant minerals might be geopolitically stabilizing — or destabilizing, for all I know.)
Probably mostly indirectly, as a catalyst for science, engineering, and industry in general, with concomitant beneficial effects on education and living standards, thus potentially allowing more attention and resources to be allocated to x-risk mitigation in the long term.
On the other hand, technological advances bring risks of their own, so it's not obvious what the net benefit is. My intuition tends to favor advancement, but I'm open to persuasion if there are good (particularly inside-view) arguments against it.
Other existential risks that are impacted by space colonization include asteroids and sudden diseases. One other thing to keep in mind is that if the Great Filter is some specific advanced technology that we haven't yet constructed, then it is likely that space colonization will allow some avoidance of that. This follows since any such technology will likely not be able to spread much beyond the planet where it occurs (otherwise we would have started to see signs of its spread in the star systems that are the graves of civilizations). Thus for example, the Filter probably is not something like a slow false vacuum collapse made by a specific technology. In that regard, space colonization helps protect against a lot of unknown unknowns.
The tech level to attack a Mars colony is as high as the tech level to send colonies. And no colony would be a substantial military threat. Deliberately constructing weapons to specifically attack a colony well before hostilities break out seems not just not nice but well beyond sociopathic. The level of outright vindictiveness seems even beyond that of any classical dictator.
I kind of consider democracy a major source of existential risk especially looking at the opportunity costs, neither candidates are promising to get rid of it.
Edit: This isn't spur of the moment contrarianism, at one point I intended to write a series of articles on democracy for the site. The public draft for the first part of that series is here.
Have you ever read any of the Vorkosigan saga by Lois Bujold?
Just curious whether you think that the government of Barrayar is an improvement current Western governments.
This is an ambiguous question. At the time the novels are set, Barrayar has a popular, clever, benevolent, and capable emperor. A longer historical view would include a number of tyrants and devastating civil wars.
So a great case study for the theory and practice of monarchy?
I think fictional evidence isn't terribly convincing. Note also that monarchy in the current era is constantly at risk of turning into either democracy or tyranny. "Ancient blood" hasn't been a reliable source of legitimacy since 1789. As a result, monarchs need either elections or raw force to keep their grip. And tyranny is unstable and tends to result in great wasted effort in preventing coups and insurrections.
Indeed. Try Hans-Herman Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed or Graham's The Case Against Democracy. Neither is all that convincing that monarchy is much better than democracy, but they make a decent case that it is at least marginally better. Note that Hoppe's book obviously started as a collection of articles, it is seriously repetitive. Both books are short and fairly easy reads.
No I haven't, is it a good read?
They're widely considered outstanding science fiction. Four of the Vorkosigan novels have won Hugo awards.
Cool, I will add it to my fiction reading list.
The risk of global war is the predominant one to consider. I put that at a slight edge for Romney, since I think Obama will be seen as weaker abroad, and perceived weakness is a major risk.
Voting is kind of like buying lottery tickets in this regard, a waste of perfectly good hope. It really is a silly ritual which I'm dismayed some rationalists still take seriously.
My advice is finding higher quality entertainment.
Do you dispute the claims in this Gelman paper about the probability of votes in various states being decisive in Presidential elections? Or the much higher probabilities of decisive individual impact in state and local races, and popular referenda/initiatives?
Lotteries are for personal consumption, and have negative expected value. Voting can be done as an act of altruism (in addition to other reasons), buying a small chance of very large impact, for which it can easily have a positive expected value. It would cost hundreds of dollars in political contributions at least to pay for the delivery of another vote to replace yours, so there is a large wedge between your opportunity cost of time and your productivity voting.
I agree with this argument, but note that it only applies if you actually believe that the differences between the policies that Obama and Romney are likely to implement do amount to a very large overall utility differential (and that you can know beforehand in which direction it goes). I suspect that Konkvistador does not share this premise.
Large enough to be millions of times what you would buy with a $50 charitable donation. That's not a terribly high bar for differences between candidates. And certainly one's vote is more influential in primary elections than general elections, and in swing states, and in lower turnout regions, etc. Policy differences can also be clearer in other races and cases, e.g. voting on single initiatives in California.
The paper assumes votes are accurately recorded, counted, and reported. Which is known to be false; error rates in vote counts are at least 0.1%, and likely closer to 1%. A perfectly honest close election is an election decided not by actual votes cast, but the random distribution of counting errors. And any election so close is going to be subjected to recounts that simply redistribute the counting errors.
Now, it is theoretically possible your vote might actually tip things in the final recount, right? Despite the fact that who actually won in a close election is unknown and unknowable, your vote is more likely to be accurately counted than not, so it might tip over the decision, right?
Except that's assuming perfect honesty in recording, counting, and reporting, which is ridiculous. What will determine who wins in a close election is whether the margin created by random counting errors is small enough that the people in the best position to commit fraud can tip it the way they prefer.
And, of course, we then ask -- did you actually have a good, reliable of idea how your candidate was going to do in office, and then on top of that how his choices were actually going to translate into effects? Really? So, back in November 2008, what did you predict the September 2012 unemployment rate would be, if Obama won? What did you predict the US budget deficit would be? Did you predict that the average number of deaths of US personnel in Afghanistan per month under Obama would be five times higher than it was under Bush? Did you predict the overthrow of the Libyan government by US air power? Let's be serious; Obama didn't have a very good idea of how his policies would translate into actual effects back on Election Day 2008.
Your vote for a position less powerful than President is more influential, sure, but its actual effect is reduced because the position is less powerful. There might be some point in voting on propositions and initiatives if your state has them, and maybe on very local elections if you've bothered to become informed on them and live in a small enough community.
I have no idea why this post is down voted, since it points out something very important, voting results are an imperfect measurement of who the electorate actually tried to vote for.
Assuming honesty in recording is actually not problematic. As Eugine_Nier says, there will still be a set of voting outcomes that lead to Candidate A being elected, and a set of voting outcomes that lead to Candidate B being elected, and fraud only slightly changes the shape of the boundary between these sets.
It gets better. Turns out that the "area" of that boundary is minimized in a fair majority election. The probability of a vote being pivotal is only increased when the boundary is distorted by fraud (although, obviously, your vote will no longer be pivotal in exactly the same situations).
If the error rate in vote counts is 1%, that means you're 99% as likely to make the vote you intend to make. So if you had a 1 in 10 million chance to make a pivotal vote, that chance now becomes... roughly 1 in 10.1 million. This part doesn't really make a lot of difference, although you're right that it should be taken into account.
I don't think you appreciate just how hard counting votes is.
What does that have to do with anything? Okay, fine, make the error rate 10%. Then your chance of making a pivotal vote just became 1 in 11 million instead of 1 in 10 million. That's a gross overestimate and it still hasn't made a huge difference.
Edit: My point is that although dishonesty changes when exactly your vote is pivotal, it increases the probability that it will be.
Your vote might still be the vote that tips the total past the threshold where the opposing counters can commit fraud.
See this post. The point being that in order for rationalists to win we need to stop using the kind of straw rationality you seem to be advocating.
For example, while it's true that an individual vote only has a small effect, consider the effect of say encouraging rationalists not to vote notice that this has an effect on more that one vote.
I always find it amusing how quickly people jump to knock off effects in these debates. If my actions and arguments have such effects surely those of other potential voters do as well. Doesn't this mean things add back to normality any my influence really is just the nano-slice it seems to be?
Most voters don't campain, post on LW, etc.
Related to our discussion:
If elections aren’t a Pascal’s mugging, existential risk shouldn’t be either
Voting as One-boxing
If Omega thinks you are the kind of person who one-boxes, you will find $1,000,000 in the one box. At this point, you could take two boxes and pick up a small additional reward, but if you are really the kind of person who one-boxes, you won’t do that. If you went for the minor utility pickup at the end, you would be a two-boxer and the million dollars wouldn’t’ have been there in the first place.
If parties think you are the kind of person who votes, they will care about your policy preferences. At this point, you could stay home and pick up a small additional reward, but if you are really the kind of person who votes, you won’t do that. If you went for the minor utility pickup at the end, you would be a non-voter and the parties wouldn’t care about your policy preferences in the first place.
I think that if you really buy into the one box arguments presented elsewhere on this site, you should be voting. (conditional on the assumption that you have significant policy preferences; if you don’t care either way, then there is nothing analogous to the million dollars)
This meme just will not seem to die.
No, not all the assumptions made in the thought experiments designed to show TDT cooperating and CDT defecting (and TDT benefiting from the difference) are present in the specific case of a human deciding whether to vote in a national election. The other agents are not behaving remotely like TDT or UDT agents and a TDT agent would defect and benefit from doing so. And then the next election would come around and they would do the same thing.
TDT doesn't mean act like a care bear!
(Expanding on this out of interest, and assuming a case where there are enough TDTish agents in your population for it to actually be sane to consider cooperating.)
The assumption required is not quite whether you have strong preferences but what the preferences of all the TDTish agents are (or are estimated to be). If there is a group of agents implementing decision theories like TDT who are all willing to cooperate if that's what it takes to make the other people in that group cooperate and it happens that half of them are Greens and half are Blues then they do cooperate by staying home!
Not at all, if Omega is offering me 1$ for one-boxing I see no need to play its game since I can get more utility doing other things. Voting probably doesn't get any particular voter more than a few dollars of expected utility in government action. The delusions associated with voting probably give them far more but again like with the lottery I find that a waste since they can be gained in other ways (some of which do the world some good).
To be fair on Billy_Q this particular exception seems to be accounted for in the parenthetical you included in the quote, at least in the way that he would translate "significant policy preferences" into dollar values.
I just realized that one doesn't even need to invoke game theory for voting to make sense. If there are N voters in an election, the probability of you being the deciding vote is approximately
, but the number of people affected by the result is approximately N (probably more since a lot of people don't vote). Thus, the expected number of people you'll affect is 
.
This seems like grasping at straws.
Consider how many people you affect when you go to the store to buy breakfast. You practically effect nearly everyone else on the planet by a very small value. I'd argue voting is not more than two or so orders of magnitude above that.
But let us for the sake of argument say it is larger than that, your basic problem is that every other voter affects
people by the same value as well. No matter how you turn this you only get a nanoslice of power in steering where the country moves. There are clearly better things to do with your life than spending time thinking about which candidate to vote for or paying the price in gas for the 30 minute drive to the voting booth.
This is assuming to the first approximation politicians only care about the proportions of votes various candidates and parties get and not the number of people voting. Note that for some kinds of referendums this isn't true. But for most elections it seems to hold to the first approximation. Moving beyond that approximation, I bet that higher voter turn out makes the result of the elections seem more legitimate to the populace emboldening the government for decisive action.
If one desires small government the state having little legitimacy sounds like a good idea.
You're effectively choosing the administration under which
people will live until the next election. This is a much larger effect than the marginal change to the economy from you buying breakfast.
To through your other argument around back at you. What's the marginal effect of one person refusing to vote. Probably less than for one person voting since most people who don't vote do so out of laziness with no deeper philosophical motive behind it. Let's put it this way: a candidate with a majority (or even a plurality in some systems) becomes the office holder, whereas less than 50% turnout doesn't cause a revolution; and even if it did, it would probably not be the revolution you want.
Let's put it this way, the two reasons you've given for not voting are:
1) You're unlikely to affect the outcome anyway.
2) If enough people don't vote the government will have less legitimacy and this can have positive effects.
Since the logic of these two reasons contradict, would you mind telling me which is your true rejection?
We still want the state to have enough legitimacy to secure property rights and enforce contracts.
I'm another non-voter, largely (or medium-largely) for the reasons Konkvistador gives. But it's not the legitimacy of government that I wish to weaken. Places where government, even bad government, is not taken seriously are not nice places to live. If there's an institution or a cultural value that I wish to see weakened it's the people's romance.
In general I see nothing inconsistent about a democracy where most people voluntarily abstain from voting. A norm of not voting would require low amounts of sectarian conflict and large amounts of social trust, which don't exist in very many democracies. But as goals go I think low levels of sectarianism and high levels of social trust are superior to (and at cross-purposes with) high levels of voting.
You are right. I concede it probably isn't instrumentally useful for the goal of a small, strong and stable government capable of enforcing contracts and protecting rights. While the de-legitimized state might have a hard time growing even more and in its incompetence new de facto freedoms would slip out of its fingers, but the freedom is the freedom of anarchy not the liberty of minarchy. The argument I gave degenerates into a basic argument for anarchy and revolution in the hopes for change. Something that has historically almost never worked out well.
Good catch. I don't think people not voting has a large effect, just that people not voting also sends a signal to the system and it doesn't seem obvious that it is much smaller one than the one you send by voting for a party or candidate.
1) You're unlikely to affect the outcome anyway.
2) The tiny expected influence you have on the outcome doesn't go away when you don't vote, because abstaining from voting is also a political act.
I would perhaps add 3) that this political act may have instrumental utility for certain kinds of goals.
But applying 1) and 2) I get a bit of a problem. My value of information argument against spending time on thinking about party politics should then also clearly apply to thinking about voting or non-voting as well, advice I'm obviously not following. My revealed preferences point that some part of me thinks that not voting is very desirable. This can't be argued on consequentalist grounds for the reason you point out. Thinking about it I seem to consider non-voting valuable enough to think and talk about for symbolic reasons, seeing it as a sort of Schelling fence of personal political detachment from one's society. If you live in a society where your values or map of the world radically diverge from the rest of society, such a thing is perhaps good for personal well being, seeing oneself as a subject rather than a citizen helps you deal with the constant pain of things going horribly wrong.
Looking from the outside I'm using non-voting arguments to try and promote alienation from the society and hopefully drift towards my mind space. My inside feeling to the contrary is weaker evidence. Readers should then try to correct for this.
Taking another step up the ladder, perhaps my self-proclaimed divergent values are only a rationalization for my lack of tribal feeling linked to the state. Such a predisposition is hardly unique in the mindspace near LW/OB.
My politics and values are quite different from Bryan Caplan's, yet the conclusions seem remarkably similar. Maybe both of us already had our bottom line written out first.
Have you considered moving to a better society?
Isn't it better to try to fix things than wallow in your learned helplessness?
How so? Near as I can tell, except for the whole emo/alienation thing you have going your values seem very similar.
Not voting (especially if you tell others you didn't vote) also affects people. You are going to need to subtract this to get the net effects.
This affect seems like it would be limited to one's immediate acquaintances, also it seems like it would have a smaller affect on them than which administration they live under.
I don't vote for hope or because I expect my actions to cause a change in outcome. I vote primarily because it feels good, but also because I have a policy of cooperating rather than defecting when it doesn't cost too much.
In other words, I vote for the same reasons my internal model of Douglas Hofstadter would vote if it could.
Indeed, and moreover they cancel each other out.
Only in their rhetoric, which is at most weakly correlated with their actual policy decisions.
Pure theater. Enjoy the show. Think of it as the Status Olympics, which occur every four years along with the summer games.
They don't exactly cancel out. I think that brains tend to use "these things cancel out" as an excuse to do less thinking.
Yes, but in this case, the rhetoric matters. I believe this was Stuart's point. If we want to raise the "sanity waterline", then, all else being equal, saner political dialog is a good thing. Right?
oxymoron.
No, sane political dialog is an oxymoron. Saner political dialog isn't, just as "bigger shrimp" isn't.
Romney would likely be more pro-business than Obama in part by favoring lower corporate taxes, less burdensome regulations, and prioritizing high skilled vs. low skilled immigrants. So compared to Obama, under Romney the U.S. would probably have more economic growth (but also more economic inequality). As economic growth is vital for scientific advancement, Romney would probably create a better environment for scientific progress than Obama would.
Yes, but scientific¹ progress would make both FAI and uFAI more likely.
I don't think that this is completely obvious to me. It wouldn't have been obvious in say 1930 that investigation of atoms would lead to a serious existential risk, or any substantial new technologies for that matter. If some aspect of basic physics presents a more efficient computing substrate, or a new source of energy, that could easily have an impact (albeit not necessarily directly).
Well, I guess that depends on what I meant by “short and middle term”.
I don't think the evidence of presidential influence on growth rates is enough to support the contention (in either direction). Yes, famously, the economy grows better under democratic presidents - but that's a very small sample, with no clear causality. But certainly enough to reject the idea that a Romney presidency would be necessarily better for the economy.
I'm not going by past trends. Demographics combined with entitlements are going to create a massive problem for the U.S. My perception is that Romney would handle this by reducing the rate of growth of entitlements and doing everything possible to increase economic growth whereas Obama wants to handle the problem by increasing taxes on the rich.
You're mixing up levels.
EDIT: To be clearer - You're comparing a high-level goal/plan of candidate A ("make economy good") to a low-level plan of candidate B ("get money from people"). Example: "Candidate X wants to safeguard our freedom and prosperity, but candidate Y wants to send Americans to fight and die overseas." The reason this leads to a false impression is because we readily attribute low-level plans to high-level plans/goals ("if he wants freedom and prosperity, that means he'll do good things") but don't attribute high-level plans/goals to low-level plans ("If he's going to send Americans to fight and die overseas, how can you say he wants freedom and prosperity?").
The rhetorical effect of comparing plans on different levels may be diminished by remembering that neither candidate is an evil mutant - they both have high-level plans that are pretty much "make good things happen, stop bad things from happening."
Why would more less-skilled immigrants be bad for business? Wouldn't that mean both more consumers and cheaper labor?
I'm not claiming that low skilled immigrants harm business just that higher skilled ones are better for economic growth than lower skilled immigrants are.
If they're available in equal numbers, sure. But that seems unlikely to be the case.
Just for my clarity: do you mean to assert that other factors won't significantly affect the environment for scientific progress compared to the effect of economic growth? Or are you just not thinking about them here?
I think that economic growth is by far the most important factor, but it's not the only factor.
Let me see... I think Obama has only served one term, which means he is qualified to try again so he is probably one of the candidates. </knowledge of current US politics>
Confirmed.
On the assumption that the most likely UFAI is intended to maximize investment returns, which candidate would make it more probable?