@randallburns

https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeop…

Apparently he's pro-homeopathy as well. Doesn't seem like a very reliable source to me.

Updating to 67% for Trump, several sources have said that riots are usually good for the right wing candidate. Not taking a moral stance here, just a prediction.

In the long-run, Metaculus (or some other prediction platform?) should remove the manual review process for new questions and assume that there will be millions of different questions, assume questions have a range of quality and a range of relevance, and find ways to deal with that systematically rather than manually. I'm not sure exactly how that would work, but I am pretty sure that it needs to be done. One idea is that questions should be split into observables, akin to oracles in the crypto world, and aggregates, akin to ETFs in the finance worl...

@Sylvain

The interesting region between now and late 2021 has been compressed to about 1cm on my 30cm screen. I can hardly see what I am doing.

A UI improvement would be to widen all these bars to take up the whole screen.

Thanks!

> we assume the MS is not an internet-accessible resource What if resources that are extremely similar to MS are internet-accessible? How similar are they allowed to be before it doesn't count? > but no party is allowed to consult additional humans, What if MS was trained on a large database of humans answering questions similar to the ones used in the test. Does that count as "consulting" them? What if MS was trained on a video/text/audio record of everything every human has ever said or done (or something that approximates that). Does that count a...

Also this:

"having less than ten SAT exams as part of the training data"

How many SAT exams are in GPT-3's training data? You have no idea.

So what would happen if a system like GPT-4/5/6 that used a truly enormous training set won this? Resolves ambiguous?

This question is nonsense.

The title of this is misleading.

The resolution criteria that have been specified here aren't criteria for a true AGI, they're resolution criteria for a narrow-AI system that can do a few specific tricks.

I suspect that with sufficient motivation, Deepmind could just polish this off today.

Updating to 40% as I feel that there is a decent amount of groupthink around, but on fundamentals and polling it doesn't look good for Trump.

Trump didn't die of covid or get very sick, the supreme court issue is positive for Trump, media censorship over Hunter Biden looks bad for the Democrat Party, etc.

Also this is a very unusual election so we should move more towards 50/50 and trust polling less.

The_Donald subreddit and Stefan Molyneux's YouTube were taken down today, amid a purge of right-wing social media.

The trend of major power centers like business, websites and institutions joining a left-wing power bloc is what made me downgrade trump's chances to 33%, and I see that trend continuing.

@randallburns

Why do the riots have to be intentional?

Why do riots help?

42% is huge for voter fraud/suppression IMO.

Further updating on the WaPo article, and someone else independently raised the issue of geographic location coincidence as evidence.

@Sylvain I do feel that Trump is more likely to win. "Sleepy Joe", dementia etc. But within that, I'm not very sure about the right probability.

Perhaps the scores are just a good way of eliciting one's true probability distribution?

@notany

The economist is overconfident and I hope Trump wins just to burn them lol

@Jgalt The events may not, but there has been a purge in journalism and academia, and the army and police have started kneeling for a radical left-wing group.

I am pretty uncertain about how this will play out though. I may update a bit towards 50/50.

Also updating my prediction based on the WaPo article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…

“The idea that it was just a totally natural occurrence is circumstantial. The evidence it leaked from the lab is circumstantial. Right now, the ledger on the side of it leaking from the lab is packed with bullet points and there’s almost nothing on the other side,”

I'm going back down to 55% because there are some discrepancies that don't quite fit with the lab story, and there is the possibility that bats were only involved a lot earlier, with a secondary species such as pangolins etc carrying the virus to a market.

I think 55% is about right and maybe I was a bit too high before.

Updating to 25% as Trump seems to have gotten over covid-19.

@randallburns

I don't think that follows. The highest doses are typically when your partner or other household members get it. But it could certainly be a high dose, and it could certainly be serious, and in any case Trump has just been flown to Hospital.

@Fruo

"multiplies out to 85% * 30% * 25% = 6%."

These are not independent events so it's not justified to multiply the probabilities.