I feel like the correct take here is EMH false because market’s don’t really account for black swans well.
I agree that there’s money to be made here under certain circumstances, but also keep in mind that the bestcompanies are not publicly traded. In a non-catastrophic scenario you can probably get decent exposure via publictechcompanies, but in a catastrophic scenario the winning strategy is to spend as much as possible before the world ends.
Suppose you have something like 50% catastrophic AI and 50% nothing happens for 2 decades, though, I’m not really sure what you should do. If nothing happens and you spend all your money you spend the rest of your life penniless. If the world does end, does buying that 2nd house really get you all that much utility? Most of the things I value (and haven’t already bought) are of the form “living a long and fulfilling life” or “seeing my grandchildren” which are impossible to invest for in the 50⁄50 scenario.
If the world does end, does buying that 2nd house really get you all that much utility?
Conversely what about the range of somewhat positive scenarios. The world doesn’t end, but general robotic AI works. You can simply write a file for the instructions for a robot and it can go do a task and it is much more likely to succeed than a typical human is.
Only the land under that 2nd house has any long term value in that scenario. The structure can be swapped like we swap flatscreen TVs today. (not that far fetched, in prior eras TVs were much more expensive and actually a significant investment)
And implicitly the reason we are all supposed to horde away huge piles of wealth for retirement is because:
1. medical care is delivered by humans and is mostly ineffective but when you are elderly it can burn away millions on marginally effective treatments to add a few extra weeks before you’re dead
2. prices for basic necessities could theoretically increase a lot and you need that huge pile of assets to pay for them
3. you have plans for all the activities you are going to do when elderly that you probably won’t actually do
Even somewhat positive AI scenarios where the world hasn’t ended but it is capable and commonplace may break all 3 assumptions. It definitely breaks #2, it might break #1. AI developed therapies for aging might break #3 though arguably if you weren’t appearing elderly and suffering from all the symptoms of untreated aging you could return to work.
I feel like the correct take here is EMH false because market’s don’t really account for black swans well.
I agree that there’s money to be made here under certain circumstances, but also keep in mind that the best companies are not publicly traded. In a non-catastrophic scenario you can probably get decent exposure via public tech companies, but in a catastrophic scenario the winning strategy is to spend as much as possible before the world ends.
Suppose you have something like 50% catastrophic AI and 50% nothing happens for 2 decades, though, I’m not really sure what you should do. If nothing happens and you spend all your money you spend the rest of your life penniless. If the world does end, does buying that 2nd house really get you all that much utility? Most of the things I value (and haven’t already bought) are of the form “living a long and fulfilling life” or “seeing my grandchildren” which are impossible to invest for in the 50⁄50 scenario.
If the world does end, does buying that 2nd house really get you all that much utility?
Conversely what about the range of somewhat positive scenarios. The world doesn’t end, but general robotic AI works. You can simply write a file for the instructions for a robot and it can go do a task and it is much more likely to succeed than a typical human is.
Only the land under that 2nd house has any long term value in that scenario. The structure can be swapped like we swap flatscreen TVs today. (not that far fetched, in prior eras TVs were much more expensive and actually a significant investment)
And implicitly the reason we are all supposed to horde away huge piles of wealth for retirement is because:
1. medical care is delivered by humans and is mostly ineffective but when you are elderly it can burn away millions on marginally effective treatments to add a few extra weeks before you’re dead
2. prices for basic necessities could theoretically increase a lot and you need that huge pile of assets to pay for them
3. you have plans for all the activities you are going to do when elderly that you probably won’t actually do
Even somewhat positive AI scenarios where the world hasn’t ended but it is capable and commonplace may break all 3 assumptions. It definitely breaks #2, it might break #1. AI developed therapies for aging might break #3 though arguably if you weren’t appearing elderly and suffering from all the symptoms of untreated aging you could return to work.