@kokotajlod Hahaha the attractor has been overpowered!

So this is everyone's last chance to affect their points on this question even though it is closed, which is an unusual circumstance. If you're asking yourself whether it's worth spending $$ for just "meaningless" internet points, I'll remind you that [Desai, Critch and Russell](https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~russell/papers/nips18-pareto.pdf) answer the question > Whose values will the first super-human AI systems serve? with a theorem showing that under (surely innocuous and self-evident) assumptions > Theorem 4 shows that a Pareto optimal policy...

Just a general comment as to how crazy it is that we need an axis extending from -20 to +20 to report a GDP growth rate.

Congrats to all! I hope/assume you all consider the good you're doing the world, and the admiration you're accruing, a bigger prize than the $$$.

Interesting that this was almost a full 2 years later than what was predicted at the end of 2019 based on trends.

I can finally report that this resolves negatively. Price and Shulman did not agree on the resolution, so it went to the committee. The two salient points: * Aguirre & Tegmark agreed that they both had less than 50% credence in the given proposition. (Rees did not formally weigh in.) * Aguirre & Tegmark both also state that this does *not* necessarily imply other propositions, such as that LENR is unworthy of funding, because even at a much lower credence level than 50% it could be very worthwhile as high-risk high-payoff research. (On the other hand ...

I'm holding off on the other LRT1.X questions as it's conceivable that the two numbers will be close enough that we can hold our nose and average or pick one without it mattering much.

@AlejandroZerboni wrote:

Imposible.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Any thoughts? I'd lean 'yes.'

@randallburns Anyone know what the baseline for this question is? It occurs to me that (especially if "better off" is interpreted financially) most people tend to be better off as they age. So I'm not sure how to interpret this number.

I guess we should not be surprised that there seems to be a high prevalence in well-known figures, as they preferentially are the type to do a lot of international travel, meetings with people from many locations, etc. There's probably an adjustment factor from "typical person" to "well-known public figure" that would be interesting but pretty hard to estimate.

Very depressingly, the community prediction for this question has gone up a factor of 288 since March 1 until March 28, about 23% per day, which is just about how fast the cast numbers have been growing...

@ignorance.prior This feature is about to go live! Stay tuned a few days...

@bzial Will is turn out that the coronovirus was an accidental release?

@bzial Also, we'll soon have log scores assigned for numerical questions (Briers are not really defined), so that may help a bit.

Commenting here so this does not get lost in the election frakas. A nice new update is live, including private question sharing, and much improved search.

I've made the close date on this earlier as it's obviously going to resolve at > 100K and I think it's fair to leave significant weighting on the earlier part of the timeseries when this was harder to estimate.

Can I comment that this is like a really, really crazy number of papers? This does not seem like an exponential that can really go on for that long. Is there any way of determining how many of these papers come from academic institutions and how many from industry. The former, in particular, has some pretty stringent limits as to how fast it can grow: hiring faculty is pretty slow and there is a real shortage of candidates. If it's mostly industry that can scale up faster, though you still might imagine running out of people if the number really has ...

@James wrote:

@Anthony - the real-life bet this question is based on should have resolved now. I am guessing negatively?

Apparently Huw and Carl do not agree so it's now up to Max, Martin & I, which I had really hoped would not be the case. :-O

In correspondence with them, more info. soon(ish).

Thanks! My favorite fail:

Q: What is the answer to "Add 34957 to 70764"?

A: 34957 to 70764 = Ah yes, 34957 is a type of cheese that is made from sheep’s milk. It’s not very popular though.