I'm an independent researcher currently working on a sequence of posts about consciousness. You can send me anonymous feedback here: https://www.admonymous.co/rafaelharth. If it's about a post, you can add [q] or [nq] at the end if you want me to quote or not quote it in the comment section.
Posts
Wikitag Contributions
I've also noticed this assumption. I myself don't have it, at all. My first thought has always been something like "If we actually get AGI then preventing terrible outcomes will probably require drastic actions and if anything I have less faith in the US government to take those". Which is a pretty different approach from just assuming that AGI being developed by government will automatically lead to a world with values of government . But this a very uncertain take and it wouldn't surprise me if someone smart could change my mind pretty quickly.
These are very poor odds, to the point that they seem to indicate a bullish rather than a bearish position on AI.
If you think the odds of something are , but lots of other people think they are with , then the rational action is not to offer bets at a point close to ; it's to find the closest number to possible. Why would you bet at 1:5 odds if you have reason to believe that some people would be happy to bet at 1:7 odds?
You could make an argument that this type of thinking is too mercenary/materialistic or whatever, but then critique should be about that. In any case the inference that offering a bet close to indicates beliefs close to is just not accurate.
1I'm glad METR did this work, and I think their approach is sane and we should keep adding data points to this plot.
It sounds like you also think the current points on the plot are accurate? I would strongly dispute this, for all the reasons discussed here and here. I think you can find sets of tasks where the points fit on an exponential curve, but I don't think AI can do 1 hour worth of thinking on all, or even most, practically relevant questions.
In the last few months, GPT models have undergone a clear shift toward more casual language. They now often close a post by asking a question. I strongly dislike this from both a 'what will this do to the public's perception of LLMs' and 'how is my personal experience as a customer' perspective. Maybe this is the reason to finally take Gemini seriously.
I unfortunately don't think this proves anything relevant. The example just shows that there was one question where the market was very uncertain. This neither tells us how certain the market is in general (that depends on its confidence on other policy questions), nor how good this particular estimate was (that, I would argue, depends on how far along the information chart it was, which is not measurable -- but even putting my pet framework aside, it seems intuitively clear "it was 56% and then it happened" doesn't tell you how much information the market utilized).
The point is that even if voters did everything right and checked prediction markets as part of their decision making algorithm, it wouldn't help.
This depends on the first point, which again requires looking at a range of policy markets, not just one. And actually, I personally didn't expect Trump to do any tarrifs at all (was 100% wrong there), so for me, the market would have updated me significantly into the right direction.
Thanks. I've submitted my own post on the 'change our mind form', though I'm not expecting a bounty. I'd instead be interested in making a much bigger bet (bigger than Cole's 100 USD), gonna think about what resolution criterion is best.
Yeah, valid correction.
Trump says a lot of stuff that he doesn't do, the set of specific things that presidents don't do is larger than the set of things they do, and tariffs didn't even seem like they'd be super popular with his base if in fact they were implemented. So "~nothing is gonna happen wrt tariffs" seemed like the default outcome with not enough evidence to assume otherwise.
I was also not paying a lot of attention to what he was saying. After the election ended, I made a conscious decision to tune out of politics to protect my mental health. So it was a low information take -- but I don't know if paying more attention would have changed my prediction. I still don't think I actually know why Trump is doing the tariffs, especially to such an extreme extent..