Why do you think the fraction of investors who believe that the potential outcomes of TAI include situations besides extinction and future profits being worthless is negligible?
I don’t think this. Where do you think I say that?
These are the scenarios defined in the former post. I just run with the assumptions of the argument they present, and show that their conclusion doesn’t follow from those assumptions. That doesn’t mean I think all the assumptions are accurate reflections of reality. The fact that TAI can play out in many ways, and investors may have very differing beliefs about what it means for their optimal saving rate today, is just another argument for why we shouldn’t use interest rates as a measure of AI timelines, which is what I argue in this post.
The wording you used in the post was about “savvy” investors, but my naive understanding of markets is that the savviness or not doesn’t particularly matter here.
savvy investors cannot expect to get rich by betting on short AI timelines. Such a bet simply ties up your capital until it loses its value (either because you’re dead, or because you’re so rich that it hardly matters). Therefore, a savvy investor with short timelines will simply increase their own consumption.
The short reason is this:
The reason for an investor to make a bet, is that they believe they will profit later
However, if they believe in near-term TAI, savvy investors won’t value future profits (since they’ll be dead or super rich anyways)
Therefore, there is no way for them to win by betting on near-term TAI
If there are non-negligible portions of investors who believe in near-term TAI and also value future profits, doesn’t that put a hole through the argument?
See my response to Carl further up. This follows from accepting the assumptions of the former post. I wanted to show that even with said assumptions, their conclusions don’t follow. But I don’t think the assumptions are realistic either.
Why do you think the fraction of investors who believe that the potential outcomes of TAI include situations besides extinction and future profits being worthless is negligible?
I don’t think this. Where do you think I say that?
These are the scenarios defined in the former post. I just run with the assumptions of the argument they present, and show that their conclusion doesn’t follow from those assumptions. That doesn’t mean I think all the assumptions are accurate reflections of reality. The fact that TAI can play out in many ways, and investors may have very differing beliefs about what it means for their optimal saving rate today, is just another argument for why we shouldn’t use interest rates as a measure of AI timelines, which is what I argue in this post.
The wording you used in the post was about “savvy” investors, but my naive understanding of markets is that the savviness or not doesn’t particularly matter here.
If there are non-negligible portions of investors who believe in near-term TAI and also value future profits, doesn’t that put a hole through the argument?
See my response to Carl further up. This follows from accepting the assumptions of the former post. I wanted to show that even with said assumptions, their conclusions don’t follow. But I don’t think the assumptions are realistic either.
I have updated the post to reflect this