We have so much uncertainty abut pathways that I’m skeptical there is really any benefit here. If we knew enough to write such a guide, that would be great, but for reasons having nothing to do with our financial preparedness.
This seems like a very surprising claim to me. You can make money on stocks by knowing things above pure chance. Do you really think that P(stock rises|AGI)≈P(stock rises) for all stocks?
Your question ignores timeframes. I’m happy to argue that P(stock rises in the next 5 years |AGI in 20 years)≈P(stock rises in the next 5 years) for all stocks.
I’m a professional equity investor, and trust me, the market isn’t that forward-looking. Unless you believe in AGI within the next 10 years, I suggest ignoring it when it comes to picking investments. Because for the intermediate timeframe until the market begins to take the concept seriously, the value of your investments will be determined by all the other factors which you’re ignoring in favour of focusing on AGI, so unless you want your investment results to be meh for years-to-decades, then don‘t go for some all-out bet on AI.
The question is not if you can build a portfolio where the expected gains conditional on AGI is positive, it’s whether you can get enough of an advantage that it outweighs the costs of doing so, and in expectation outperforms the obvious alternative strategy of index funds. If you’re purely risk-neutral, this is somewhat easier. Otherwise, the portfolio benefits of reducing probability of losses are hard to beat.You also may have cases where P(stock rises | AGI by date X)>>P(Stock rises), but P(stock falls | ~AGI by date X) is high enough not to be worthwhile.