And the current increase in hinginess seems unsustainable, in that the increase in hinginess we’ve seen so far leads to x-risk probabilities that lead to drastic reduction of the value of worlds that last for eg a millennium at current hinginess levels.
Didn’t quite follow this part. Are you saying that if hinginess keeps going up (or stays at the current, high level), that implies a high level of x-risk as well, which means that, with enough time at that hinginess (and therefore x-risk) level, we’ll wipe ourselves out; and therefore that we can’t have sustained, increasing / high hinginess for a long time?
(That’s where I would have guessed you were going with that argument, but I got confused by the part about “drastic reduction of the value of worlds …” since the x-risk component seems like a reason the high-hinginess can’t last a long time, rather than an argument that it would last but coincide with a sad / low-value scenario.)
Didn’t quite follow this part. Are you saying that if hinginess keeps going up (or stays at the current, high level), that implies a high level of x-risk as well, which means that, with enough time at that hinginess (and therefore x-risk) level, we’ll wipe ourselves out; and therefore that we can’t have sustained, increasing / high hinginess for a long time?
(That’s where I would have guessed you were going with that argument, but I got confused by the part about “drastic reduction of the value of worlds …” since the x-risk component seems like a reason the high-hinginess can’t last a long time, rather than an argument that it would last but coincide with a sad / low-value scenario.)
Your interpretation is correct; I mean that futures with high x-risk for a long time aren’t very valuable in expectation.