Robin, even if this market theoretically should recover interest rates, don’t you think it might be interesting to have market participants who are actually thinking about Singularity-type issues, to see if that market recovers a different interest rate? Or to look at it another way, with this market you could formally issue “put your money where your mouth is” challenges that wouldn’t be quite so unethical as taking a loan from a banker because you don’t expect to ever pay it back.
I know that I wouldn’t be comfortable with taking out a loan because I believed the due date in 2080 was post-Singularity, unless this were explicitly understood by both parties to the agreement. For that matter, I’d want a clause saying that a Friendly intelligence explosion obviated the loan even if the event otherwise preserved markets.
Sebastian, the agreement would have to obligate the estate or descendants of a 50-year-old who wanted to bet on 2080. Again, the main objective is to let people put their money where their mouth is—let Kurzweil bet against Hofstadter’s “more than 100 years to AI” pronouncement, even if the payoff is made by Kurzweil’s estate to Hofstadter’s estate (do they have kids)?
I’m not sure. Probably had something to do with (a) reading econblogs in the meantime (b) getting in more practice on abandoning bad ideas and recognizing the ‘reluctance’.
Robin, even if this market theoretically should recover interest rates, don’t you think it might be interesting to have market participants who are actually thinking about Singularity-type issues, to see if that market recovers a different interest rate? Or to look at it another way, with this market you could formally issue “put your money where your mouth is” challenges that wouldn’t be quite so unethical as taking a loan from a banker because you don’t expect to ever pay it back.
I know that I wouldn’t be comfortable with taking out a loan because I believed the due date in 2080 was post-Singularity, unless this were explicitly understood by both parties to the agreement. For that matter, I’d want a clause saying that a Friendly intelligence explosion obviated the loan even if the event otherwise preserved markets.
Sebastian, the agreement would have to obligate the estate or descendants of a 50-year-old who wanted to bet on 2080. Again, the main objective is to let people put their money where their mouth is—let Kurzweil bet against Hofstadter’s “more than 100 years to AI” pronouncement, even if the payoff is made by Kurzweil’s estate to Hofstadter’s estate (do they have kids)?
Dear past Eliezer: Robin is just right here, your idea doesn’t work, accept it and move on.
Do you remember what exactly made you change your mind?
I’m not sure. Probably had something to do with (a) reading econblogs in the meantime (b) getting in more practice on abandoning bad ideas and recognizing the ‘reluctance’.