Thanks for this analysis. While it doesn’t directly answer the question I intended to ask, this is a surprising answer to the more practical question of “how much impact does a random researcher working on frontier AI have”, especially since it seems that you were, at every step, trying to make the impact as large as possible.
Is it reasonable to assume that contributions of the sample of researchers to software follow an 80⁄20 pareto distribution and that the population of the sample is about 10k? If so, I can make the relevant modifications here. The part I’m most curious about from people with a good understanding of these institutions is what the power law is like in contribution to research.
Re the questions of “Why assume computability” and “Which universal Turing machine”: I have a strong suspicion that if you compare your favorite UTM with no halting oracle and any other “natural non-obnoxious” UTM with a halting oracle to the whole arithmetic hierarchy (or beyond, if you wish), you get basically the same posterior probabilities of events given your observation history.
Re “Description length of my observations, not the universe”: my physics is spotty so this phrasing might not be exactly right but keep in mind that you don’t need the exact “starting seed” of the universal wave function + your exact “spot” in it; you just need enough to describe the simplest-to-describe seed/spot that aligns with your observations. My hunch is that this is going to be much shorter than the raw dump of your observations