Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Username 20 October 2014 02:20:14AM *  1 point [-]

我决定读中文. So technically I guess I invested my time, not money.

Comment author: Larks 20 October 2014 11:42:25PM 0 points [-]

Good answer, one I hadn't thought of.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 October 2014 02:58:04AM 2 points [-]

By "anti-Ebola preparations" do you actually mean "minimizing your chance of getting infected"?

Take a tent and go solo camping. Somewhere up North :-)

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 11:07:56PM 0 points [-]

By "anti-Ebola preparations" do you actually mean "minimizing your chance of getting infected"?

No, because as garabik noted, I don't want to commit suicide.

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 02:39:39AM 3 points [-]

Does anyone have any serious thoughts about anti-Ebola preparations one could take? (Please keep 'it is not a big threat' responses to a minimum - I'm aware of that, but am interested in the question anyway).

Comment author: Username 13 October 2014 01:19:51AM 2 points [-]

My money's on China.

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 12:15:08AM 1 point [-]

Given the theme of the thread I must ask: in what exact way? Chinese Stocks? Australian Commodities? Currencies? Short Taiwan?

Comment author: JenniferRM 16 October 2014 07:52:28AM 2 points [-]

106 comments so far and the word "artificial" (as in "artificial general intelligence", AI, or AGI) hasn't come up!?

As near as I can tell, if someone gets AGI to really work properly (and get even a not-very-explodey sort of intelligence explosion, just exponential curves with double times of months or years), it is likely, in the span of years to decades, to become worth more than the entire present value of the economy of the planet. How can this not be an investment opportunity?

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 12:10:01AM 2 points [-]

Also I appreciate the way you incremented the count, and expressed implicit minor surprise that your previous comment did not mention AGI!

Comment author: JenniferRM 16 October 2014 07:52:28AM 2 points [-]

106 comments so far and the word "artificial" (as in "artificial general intelligence", AI, or AGI) hasn't come up!?

As near as I can tell, if someone gets AGI to really work properly (and get even a not-very-explodey sort of intelligence explosion, just exponential curves with double times of months or years), it is likely, in the span of years to decades, to become worth more than the entire present value of the economy of the planet. How can this not be an investment opportunity?

Comment author: Larks 17 October 2014 12:09:14AM 1 point [-]

Perhaps it is in part due to my suggestion of a 1-3 year time horizon. But it is plausible that it could be discovered in 1-3 years.

Do you have suggestions on how one would invest on this thesis? (Invest in land and commodities? Or Google???)

Comment author: Lumifer 09 October 2014 08:56:48PM 6 points [-]

It's hard to short universities :-)

I expect the market to bifurcate with the top tier maintaining its ability to commandeer outrageous prices, but the bottom tier either reinventing itself or going bust. Harvard is fine, a fifth-tier law school in South Dakota is in deep trouble.

Comment author: Larks 11 October 2014 09:56:13PM 2 points [-]

You can short this one.

Comment author: Larks 11 October 2014 09:49:38PM 3 points [-]
  • Order the countries by their frequency in previous surveys.
  • As ever, the political labels used are misleading. The Scandinavian countries are not socialist, and the UK labour party are in many ways extremely illiberal.
  • You might want to break the cryonics question up a little more - some people are 'just finishing up the paperwork' for a very long time.
  • The immigration question is presumably actually asking about immigration controls, not immigration itself.
Comment author: Mark_Friedenbach 11 October 2014 07:02:17PM 1 point [-]

Feminists believe that women are paid less than men for no good economic reason. If this is the case, feminists should invest in companies that hire many women, and short those which hire few women, to take advantage of the cheaper labour costs

Labor costs are already reported, and if it was known that a company was particularly efficient in the labor market, that'd already be factored into its price and performance expectations, regardless of the cause.

Comment author: Larks 11 October 2014 09:35:43PM 0 points [-]

Good point.

On the other hand, the 'true', underlying normalised cost structure of a business is often unclear. If a business had a lower wage cost, and higher costs due to transient factors, you could bet that those transient factors would mean revert. But this is perhaps a relatively minor factor.

Comment author: D_Malik 10 October 2014 03:50:24AM 8 points [-]

According to gwern,

In his autobiography, Alan Greenspan says he did exactly that: he hired underpriced women and made money from not being sexist. Similarly, I have read of a company or agency which does the same thing in highly sexist South Korea, and for other forms of discrimination, we have companies specializing in hiring discriminated-against people on the autism spectrum and making money off the difference. If you want to prove a market isn’t efficient, simply reliably make excess risk-adjused returns…

Comment author: Larks 10 October 2014 10:35:58PM 1 point [-]

Yup - exactly.

Note though that Greenspan did this a very long time ago. It's plausible that the feminists were right and the market was inefficient decades ago, but they are wrong and the market is efficient contemporaneously.

View more: Next