I’ll speak for the consensus when I say I think there’s not a clear way to decide if this is correct without actually doing it—and the outcome would depend a lot on what level of engagement the superforecasters had with these ideas already. (If I got to pick the 5 superforecasters, even excluding myself, I could guarantee it was either closer to FHI’s viewpoints, or to Will’s.) Even if we picked from a “fair” reference class, if I could have them spend 2 weeks at FHI talking to people there, I think a reasonable proportion would be convinced—though perhaps this is less a function of updating neutrally towards correct ideas as it is the emergence of consensus in groups.
Lastly, I have tremendous respect for Will, but I don’t know that he’s calibrated particularly well to make a prediction like this. (Not that I know he isn’t—I just don’t have any reason to think he’s spent much time working on this skillset.)
I’ll speak for the consensus when I say I think there’s not a clear way to decide if this is correct without actually doing it—and the outcome would depend a lot on what level of engagement the superforecasters had with these ideas already. (If I got to pick the 5 superforecasters, even excluding myself, I could guarantee it was either closer to FHI’s viewpoints, or to Will’s.) Even if we picked from a “fair” reference class, if I could have them spend 2 weeks at FHI talking to people there, I think a reasonable proportion would be convinced—though perhaps this is less a function of updating neutrally towards correct ideas as it is the emergence of consensus in groups.
Lastly, I have tremendous respect for Will, but I don’t know that he’s calibrated particularly well to make a prediction like this. (Not that I know he isn’t—I just don’t have any reason to think he’s spent much time working on this skillset.)