The obvious answer is to not take your question seriously and just point out that the market is in general better than any random person, LW user or not, at predicting the future value of assets traded on that market, unless you want to disagree with the efficient market hypothesis.
But looking closer, we should expect that someone who thinks they know better would view AI company stocks and undervalued and buy them up. In fact, such people may be doing this already and simply not making us aware of it because to do so would be to give up some of their alpha! This does suggest we may not see an impact in the market, though, not because the market isn’t pricing in the information, but that there aren’t enough people with the information and enough capital to move the market to fully reflect this, thus the asset remains undervalued in terms of H. This seems to be the point you are getting at.
My guess would be, though, that H is not so far-fetched that investors with sufficient capital to move the market are not aware of it and H is already priced in, thus this suggests evidence against H. People are generally aware that AI is coming, will produce large amounts of value, and some people think that large amount of value will come soon. If you disagree and believe H, then this suggests a great investment opportunity!
Unlike being better-than-the-market at predicting the value of some asset so far, being better-than-the-market at predicting H didn’t help people to increase their control over the market (until they’re no longer better than the market at that).
Unless we assume that [being better at predicting values of assets so far] correlates with [being better at predicting H] (compared with random LW users), I don’t see why we should expect the market to be better than random LW users at predicting H.
The obvious answer is to not take your question seriously and just point out that the market is in general better than any random person, LW user or not, at predicting the future value of assets traded on that market, unless you want to disagree with the efficient market hypothesis.
But looking closer, we should expect that someone who thinks they know better would view AI company stocks and undervalued and buy them up. In fact, such people may be doing this already and simply not making us aware of it because to do so would be to give up some of their alpha! This does suggest we may not see an impact in the market, though, not because the market isn’t pricing in the information, but that there aren’t enough people with the information and enough capital to move the market to fully reflect this, thus the asset remains undervalued in terms of H. This seems to be the point you are getting at.
My guess would be, though, that H is not so far-fetched that investors with sufficient capital to move the market are not aware of it and H is already priced in, thus this suggests evidence against H. People are generally aware that AI is coming, will produce large amounts of value, and some people think that large amount of value will come soon. If you disagree and believe H, then this suggests a great investment opportunity!
Unlike being better-than-the-market at predicting the value of some asset so far, being better-than-the-market at predicting H didn’t help people to increase their control over the market (until they’re no longer better than the market at that).
Unless we assume that [being better at predicting values of assets so far] correlates with [being better at predicting H] (compared with random LW users), I don’t see why we should expect the market to be better than random LW users at predicting H.