I made a Question for this on the EA forum.
I’d second this, but, to be fair, I think predictions are basically the answer to everything, so this may not be a big update.
Thanks, and good to hear!
Density applies only to some situations; it just depends on how you look at things. It felt quite different from the other attributes.
For instance, you could rate a document “per information content” according to the RAIN framework, in which you would essentially decouple it from density. Or you could rate it per “entire document”, in which case the density would matter.
This feature seems pretty useful, and I really appreciate how you put thought into not making it too addicting. Having good incentives seems like a good way of allowing our community to “win”, and I’m happy to see that pay off in practice.
I was thinking of political policies. Government bills can often be 800+ pages, and seem to contain many specific decisions per page. I could easily imagine one having 20 possible decisions per page, each with 10 options, for 500 pages (assuming some pages are padding), meaning 100k simple decisions total. This is obviously a very rough estimate.
I hope that better examples will become obvious in future writing, will keep that in mind. Thanks for the feedback!
Just a quick 2 cents: I think it’s possible to have really poor or not-useful ontologies. One could easily make a decent ontology of Greek Gods, for instance. However, if their Foundational Understanding wasn’t great, then that ontology won’t be that useful (as if they believed in Greek Gods).
In this case, I would classify the DSM as mainly a taxonomy (a kind of ontology), but I think many people would agree it could be improved. Much of this improvement would hopefully come through what is here called Foundational Understanding.
Interesting, that makes sense, thanks for the examples.
For the first question, I’m happy we identified this as an issue. I think it is quite different. If you think there’s a good chance you will die soon, then your marginal money will likely not be that valuable to you. It’s a lot more valuable in the case that you survive.
For example, say you found out tomorrow that there’s a 50% chance everyone will die in one week. (Gosh this is a downer example) You also get to place an investment for $50, that will pay out in two weeks for $70. Is the expected value of the bet really equivalent to (70/2)-50 = -$5? If you don’t expect to spend all of your money in one week, I think it’s still a good deal.
I’d note that Superforecasters have performed better than Prediction Markets, in what I believe are relatively small groups (<20 people). While I think that Prediction Markets could theoretically work, I’m much more confident in systems like those of Superforecasters, where they wouldn’t have to make explicit bets. That said, you could argue that their time is the cost, so the percentage chance still matters. (Of course, the alternative, of giving them money to enjoy for 5-15 years before 50% death, also seems pretty bad)
If the reason your questions won’t resolve is that you are dead or that none of your money at all will be useful, I think things are a bit different.
That said, one major ask is that the forecasters believe the AGI will happen in between, which seems to me like an even bigger issue :)
I’d estimate there’s a 2% chance of this being considered “useful” in 10 years, and in those cases would estimate it to be worth $10k to $20 million of value (90% ci). Would you predict <0.1%?
I’d agree this would work poorly in traditional Prediction Markets. Not so sure about Prediction Tournaments, or other Prediction Market systems that could exist. Others could be heavily subsidized, and the money on hold could be invested in more standard asset classes.
*(Note: I said >20%, not exactly 20%)
I’m saying that the AGI would be helpful to do the resolutions; any world post-AGI could be significantly better at answering such questions. I’m not sure if it’s a useful distinction though between “The AGI evaluates the questions” and “An evaluation group uses the AGI to evaluate the questions.”
You’re right it has the issue of “predicting what someone smarter than me would do.” Do you know of much other literature on that one issue? I’m not sure how much of an issue to expect it to be.
Thanks for the considered comment.
I think the main crux here is how valuable money will be post-AGI. My impression is that it will still be quite valuable. Unless there is a substantial redistribution effort (which would have other issues), I imagine economic growth will make the rich more money than the poor. I’d also think that even though it would be “paradise”, many people would care about how many resources they have. Having one-millionth of all human resources may effectively give you access to one-millionth of everything produced by future AGIs.
Scenarios where AGI is friendly (not killing us) could be significantly more important to humans than ones in which it is not. Even if it has a 1% chance of being friendly, in that scenario, it’s possible we could be alive for a really long time.
Last, it may not have to be the case that everyone thinks money will be valuable post-AGI, but that some people with money think so. In those cases, they could exchange with others pre-AGI to take that specific risk.
So I generally agree there’s a lot of uncertainty, but think it’s less than you do. That said, this is, of course, something to apply predictions to.
I like exploration. Could also see synonyms of exploration. “discovery”, “disclosure”, “origination”, “introduction”
Thanks! Good point about the division. I agree that the different parts to be done by different groups, I’m not sure with the best way of doing each one is. My guess is that some experts should be incorporated into the foundational understanding process, but that they would want to use many other tools (like the ones you mention). I would imagine all could be either done in the private or public sector.
I didn’t mean that all analogies around diseases were good, especially around psychology. The challenges are quite hard; even in cases where a lot of good work goes into making ontologies, there could be tons of edge cases in similar.
That said, I think medicine is one of the best examples of the importance and occasional effectiveness of large ontologies. If one is doing independent work in the field, I would imagine it is rare that they would be best served by doing their own ontology development, given how much is been done so far.
Good point, thanks.
Even though we data could have values multiple sources, that could still be more useful than nothing, but it’s probably better where possible to use specific sources like the CIA World Factbook, if you trust that they will have the information the future.