I don’t think you would get many (or even any) takers among people who have median dates for ASI before the end of 2028.
Many people, and particularly people with short median timelines, have a low estimate of probability of civilization continuing to function in the event of emergence of ASI within the next few decades. That is, the second dot point in the last section “the probability of me paying you if you win was the same as the probability of you paying me if I win” does not hold.
Even without that, suppose that things go very well and ASI exists in 2027. It doesn’t do anything drastic and just quietly carries out increasingly hard tasks through 2028 and 2029 and is finally recognized as having been ASI all along in 2030. By this time everyone knows that it could have automated everything back in 2027, but Metaculus doesn’t resolve until 2030 so you win despite being very wrong about timelines.
Other not-very-unlikely scenarios include Metaculus being shut down before 2029 for any reason whatsoever (violating increasingly broad online gambling laws, otherwise failing as a viable organization, etc.), or that specific question being removed or reworded more tightly.
So the bet isn’t actually decided just by ASI timelines, but is one in which the short-timelines side of the bet only wins in the case of additional conjunctions with many clauses.
Operationalizing bets where at least one side believe that there is a significant probability of the end of civilization if they should win is already difficult. Tying one side of the bet but not the other to the continued existence of a very specific organization just makes it worse.
Thanks, JBlack. As I say in the post, “We can agree on another [later] resolution date such that the bet is good for you”. Metaculus’ changing the resolution criteria does not obviously benefit one side or the other. In any case, I am open to updating the terms of the bet such that, if the resolution criteria do change, the bet is cancelled unless both sides agree on maintaining it given the new criteria.
I don’t think you would get many (or even any) takers among people who have median dates for ASI before the end of 2028.
Many people, and particularly people with short median timelines, have a low estimate of probability of civilization continuing to function in the event of emergence of ASI within the next few decades. That is, the second dot point in the last section “the probability of me paying you if you win was the same as the probability of you paying me if I win” does not hold.
Even without that, suppose that things go very well and ASI exists in 2027. It doesn’t do anything drastic and just quietly carries out increasingly hard tasks through 2028 and 2029 and is finally recognized as having been ASI all along in 2030. By this time everyone knows that it could have automated everything back in 2027, but Metaculus doesn’t resolve until 2030 so you win despite being very wrong about timelines.
Other not-very-unlikely scenarios include Metaculus being shut down before 2029 for any reason whatsoever (violating increasingly broad online gambling laws, otherwise failing as a viable organization, etc.), or that specific question being removed or reworded more tightly.
So the bet isn’t actually decided just by ASI timelines, but is one in which the short-timelines side of the bet only wins in the case of additional conjunctions with many clauses.
Operationalizing bets where at least one side believe that there is a significant probability of the end of civilization if they should win is already difficult. Tying one side of the bet but not the other to the continued existence of a very specific organization just makes it worse.
Thanks, JBlack. As I say in the post, “We can agree on another [later] resolution date such that the bet is good for you”. Metaculus’ changing the resolution criteria does not obviously benefit one side or the other. In any case, I am open to updating the terms of the bet such that, if the resolution criteria do change, the bet is cancelled unless both sides agree on maintaining it given the new criteria.