I want to flag that even with short timelines and selfish goals, the terms of the bet seem like a bad deal.
If, until the end of 2028, Metaculus’ question about superintelligent AI:
Resolves non-ambiguously, I transfer to you 10 k January-2025-$ in the month after that in which the question resolved.
Does not resolve, you transfer to me 10 k January-2025-$ in January 2029. As before, I plan to donate my profits to animal welfare organisations.
Reason: Many people with short timelines also tend to put high probability on superintelligent AI being bad news (eg, me). From that point if view, an over-simplified interpretation of the terms is:
Either we get SAI by 2028, in which case I am dead (and get 10k).
Or we don’t, in which case I have to pay 10k.
If you wanted to account for this, the bet should be modified somehow. EG, you give me 10k now, and if [the question didn’t resolve] / [I am alive] by January 2029, I send you your 10k back and pay you 10k * x—where your proposal corresponds to x=1. (FWIW, I personally wouldn’t take the bet for x=1. But I would start thinking about it for x=0.5 or so.)
Thanks, Vojta. I made a remark about that in the post, which I bolded below (not in the post).
I think the bet would not change the impact of your donations, which is what matters if you also plan to donate the profits, if:
Your median date of superintelligent AI as defined by Metaculus was the end of 2028. If you believe the median date is later, the bet will be worse for you.
The probability of me paying you if you win was the same as the probability of you paying me if I win. The former will be lower than the latter if you believe the transfer is less likely given superintelligent AI, in which case the bet will be worse for you.
The cost-effectiveness of your best donation opportunities in the month the transfer is made is the same whether you win or lose the bet. If you believe it is lower if you win the bet, this will be worse for you.
We can agree on another resolution date such that the bet is good for you accounting for the above.
The bet can still be beneficial with a later resolution date, as I propose just above, despite the higher risk of not receiving the transfer given superintelligent AI. The expected profit for the people betting on short AI timelines in January-2025-$ as a fraction of 10 k January-2025-$ is P(“winning”)*P(“transfer is made”|”superintelligent AI”) - P(“losing”)*P(“transfer is made”|”no superintelligent AI”). If P(“winning”) = 60 %, P(“transfer is made”|”superintelligent AI”) = 80 %, P(“losing”) = 40 %, and P(“transfer is made”|”no superintelligent AI”) = 100 % (> 80 %), that fraction would be 8 % (= 0.6*0.8 − 0.4*1). So, if the bet’s resolution date was the 60 th percentile date of superintelligent AI instead of the median, it would be profitable despite the chance of the transfer being made given superintelligent AI being 20 pp (= 1 − 0.8) lower than that given no superintelligent AI.
There is no resolution date that would make the bet profitable for someone with short AI timelines who is sufficiently pessimistic about the transfer being made given superintelligent AI. I made a bet along the lines you suggested. However, there may be people who are not so pessimistic for whom the bet may be worth it with a later resolution date.
I want to flag that even with short timelines and selfish goals, the terms of the bet seem like a bad deal.
Reason: Many people with short timelines also tend to put high probability on superintelligent AI being bad news (eg, me). From that point if view, an over-simplified interpretation of the terms is:
Either we get SAI by 2028, in which case I am dead (and get 10k).
Or we don’t, in which case I have to pay 10k.
If you wanted to account for this, the bet should be modified somehow. EG, you give me 10k now, and if [the question didn’t resolve] / [I am alive] by January 2029, I send you your 10k back and pay you 10k * x—where your proposal corresponds to x=1. (FWIW, I personally wouldn’t take the bet for x=1. But I would start thinking about it for x=0.5 or so.)
Thanks, Vojta. I made a remark about that in the post, which I bolded below (not in the post).
The bet can still be beneficial with a later resolution date, as I propose just above, despite the higher risk of not receiving the transfer given superintelligent AI. The expected profit for the people betting on short AI timelines in January-2025-$ as a fraction of 10 k January-2025-$ is P(“winning”)*P(“transfer is made”|”superintelligent AI”) - P(“losing”)*P(“transfer is made”|”no superintelligent AI”). If P(“winning”) = 60 %, P(“transfer is made”|”superintelligent AI”) = 80 %, P(“losing”) = 40 %, and P(“transfer is made”|”no superintelligent AI”) = 100 % (> 80 %), that fraction would be 8 % (= 0.6*0.8 − 0.4*1). So, if the bet’s resolution date was the 60 th percentile date of superintelligent AI instead of the median, it would be profitable despite the chance of the transfer being made given superintelligent AI being 20 pp (= 1 − 0.8) lower than that given no superintelligent AI.
There is no resolution date that would make the bet profitable for someone with short AI timelines who is sufficiently pessimistic about the transfer being made given superintelligent AI. I made a bet along the lines you suggested. However, there may be people who are not so pessimistic for whom the bet may be worth it with a later resolution date.