If we get to the point where prediction markets actually direct policy, then yes you need them to be very deep - which in at least some cases is expected to happen naturally or can be subsidized but you also want to make the decision based off a deeper analysis than just the resulting percentages - depth of market, analysis of unusual large trades, blocking bad actors etc.

Weed smells orders of magnitude more than many powders and I imagine releases way more particles into the air but assuming this is doable for well packed fentanyl is there a limit? Can you expose dogs to enough say carfentanil safely initially to start training them? lofentanil? 

And if it's detectable by dogs surely it can't be that far from our capabilities to create a sensor that detects particles in the air at the same fidelity as a dog's nose by copying the general functionality of olfactory receptors and neurons if cost isn't a big issue.

I think you are overrating it. Biggest concern comes from whomever trains a model that passes some treshold in the first place. Not from a model that one actor has been using for a while getting leaked to another actor. The bad actor who got access to the leak is always going to be behind in multiple ways in this scenario.

>Once again, open weights models actively get a free exception, in a way that actually undermines the safety purpose.

Open weights getting a free exception doesn't seem that bad to me, because yes on one hand it increases the chance of a bad actor getting a cutting-edge model but on the other hand the financial incentives are weaker, and it brings more capability to good actors outside of the top 5 companies earlier. And those weights can be used for testing, safety work, etc. 

I think what's released openly will always be a bit behind anyway (and thus likely fairly safe), so at least everyone else can benefit.

They are not full explanations, but as far as, I at leat can get.

>tells you more about what exists

It's still more satisfying, because a state of ~ everything existing is more 'stable' than a state of a specific something existing,  in exactly the same way as to why I even think nothing makes more sense as a default state than something to be asking the queston. Nothing existing, and everything existing just require less explanation than a specific something existing. It doesn't mean it necesserily requires 0 explanation.
 

And, if everything mathemetically describable and consistent/computable exists, I can wrap my head around it not requiring an orgin more easily, in a similar way why I don't require an orgin for actual mathematical objects, but without it seeming like necesserily a Type error (though that's the counterargument I most consider here) like with most explanations. 

>because how can you have a "fluctuation" without something already existing, which does the fluctuating

That's at least somewhat more satisfying to me because we already know about virtual particles and fluctuations from Quantum Mechanics, so it's at least a recognized low-level mechanism that does cause something to exist even while the state is zero energy (nothing). 

It still leaves us with nothing existing over something overall in at least one way (zero energy), is already demonstratable with fields, which are at the lowest level of what we already know of how the universe works and which can be examined and thought about furtther. 

The only appealing answers to why there is something instead of nothing for me currently are

1. MUH is true, and all universes that can be defined mathematically exist. It's not a specific something that exists but all internally consistent somethings. 
or
2. The default state is nothing but there are small positive and negative fluctuations (either literally quantum fluctuations or similar but at a lower level) and over infinite time those fluctuations eventually result in a huge something like our and other universes. 

Also even If 2  happens only at the regular quantum fluctuations level, there's a non-zero chance of a new universe emerging due to fluctuations after heat death, which over infinite time would mean it is bound to happen and a new universe/rebirth of ours from scratch will eventually emerge.

Also 1 can happen due to 2 if the fluctuations are at such a low level that any possible mathematical structure eventually emerges over infinite time.

I am dominated by it, and okay, I see what you are saying. Whichever scenario results in a higher chance of human control of the light cone is the one I prefer, and these considerations are relevant only where we don't control it.

Sure, but 1. I only put 80% or so on MWI/MUH etc.  and 2. I'm talking about optimizing for more positive-human-lived-seconds, not for just a binary 'I want some humans to keep living' .

I have a preference for minds as close to mine continuing existence assuming their lives are worth living. If it's misaligned enough that the remaining humans don't have good lives, then yes it doesn't matter but I'd just lead with that rather than just the deaths. 

And if they do have lives worth living and don't end up being the last humans, then that leaves us with a lot more positive-human-lived-seconds in the 2B death case.

Okay, then what are your actual probabilities? I'm guessing it's not sub-20% otherwise you wouldnt just say "<50%", because for me preventing a say 10% chance of extinction is much more important than even a 99% chance of 2B people dying. And your comment was specifically dismissing focus on full extinction due to the <50% chance.