The shape of their argument is “see, ‘doomers’ don’t actually believe their statements about AI risk because they didn’t put money on the line!”. I think you’re suggesting an interesting mechanism for converting beliefs about AI risk to bets (I can understand wanting this separately from convincing them), but I reject the frame and premise of their argument. If you manufactured the perfect financial instrument and substantially invested in it, I don’t believe their opinions on AI-risk or the safety community would change.
I saw an interesting rebuttal on X: “Do you believe people concerned about nuclear war were wrong to be concerned? If they didn’t make the kind of extreme financial decisions you’re suggesting, were they hypocritical?”
The shape of their argument is “see, ‘doomers’ don’t actually believe their statements about AI risk because they didn’t put money on the line!”. I think you’re suggesting an interesting mechanism for converting beliefs about AI risk to bets (I can understand wanting this separately from convincing them), but I reject the frame and premise of their argument. If you manufactured the perfect financial instrument and substantially invested in it, I don’t believe their opinions on AI-risk or the safety community would change.
I saw an interesting rebuttal on X: “Do you believe people concerned about nuclear war were wrong to be concerned? If they didn’t make the kind of extreme financial decisions you’re suggesting, were they hypocritical?”