We've been in touch, and agreed that MatHatter will make the donation by end of February. I'll post a final update in this thread when I get the confirmation from GiveWell.

I'd run the numbers for higher-throughput, lower-filtration filters - see eg cleanairkits writeup - but this looks great!

Hey @MadHatter - Eliezer confirms that I've won our bet.

I ask that you donate my winnings to GiveWell's All Grants fund, here, via credit card or ACH (preferred due to lower fees).  Please check the box for "I would like to dedicate this donation to someone" and include zac@zhd.dev as the notification email address so that I can confirm here that you've done so.

IMO "major donors won't fund this kind of thing" is a pretty compelling reason to look into it, since great opportunities which are illegible or structurally-hard-to-fund definitely exist (as do illegible-or-etc terrible options; do your diligence). On the other hand I'm pretty nervous about the community dynamics that emerge when you're granting money and also socially engaged with and working in the field. Caveat donor!

I think your argument also has to establish that the cost of simulating any that happen to matter is also quite high.

My intuition is that capturing enough secondary mechanisms, in sufficient-but-abstracted detail that the simulated brain is behaviorally normal (e.g. a sim of me not-more-different than a very sleep-deprived me), is likely to be both feasible by your definition and sufficient for consciousness.

Why do you focus on this particular guy?

Because I saw a few posts discussing his trades, vs none for anyone else's, which in turn is presumably because he moved the market by ten percentage points or so. I'm not arguing that this "should" make him so salient, but given that he was salient I stand by my sense of failure.

https://www.cleanairkits.com/products/luggables is basically one side of a Corsi-Rosenthal box, takes up very little floor space if placed by a wall, and is quiet, affordable, and effective.

SQLite is ludicrously well tested; similar bugs in other databases just don't get found and fixed.

I don't remember anyone proposing "maybe this trader has an edge", even though incentivising such people to trade is the mechanism by which prediction markets work. Certainly I didn't, and in retrospect it feels like a failure not to have had 'the multi-million dollar trader might be smart money' as a hypothesis at all.

(4) is infeasible, because voting systems are designed so that nobody can identify which voter cast which vote - including that voter. This property is called "coercion resistance", which should immediately suggest why it is important!

I further object that any scheme to "win" an election by invalidating votes (or preventing them, etc) is straightforwardly unethical and a betrayal of the principles of democracy. Don't give the impression that this is acceptable behavior, or even funny to joke about.