the problem is that many individuals are suspended after they're gone (that is, they've been left warm for several hours). my impression is that alcor is slightly more likely to do this than the cryonics institute.

i still find it amusing that questions like these can be arbitraged by using more concentrated distributions.

other than making the resolution easier, is there any reason to frame this question in terms of the bet between hanson and tybarrok?

What is the point of having a question that resolves ambiguously if zero weapons are used?

@Uncle Jeff unfortunately, rationality doesn't work that way. see steve jobs.

@Jgalt it's not so much that we need a probability distribution, just probability estimates from each respondent (since there are only two outcomes) rather than a binary yes or no. in the latter scheme, everyone is going to answer yes if they think the probability is more than 50%.

@jabowery there is no true probability. either the question will resolve positive, or it won't.

my prediction is bimodal. 33% for < 50, 48% for > 100k.

a lot of my uncertainty comes from existential risk. should we condition on people still being around?

— edited by elspeth

@Matthew_Barnett there's an important qualitative difference between the two scenarios. in the former, we're alive and have most of what we want. in the latter, we're dead. i suspect that most of the disagreement lies in what a "winner takes most of the resources" scenario would actually look like. in that regard, i've been influenced by eric drexler's idea of paretotopia, as well as the observation that human beings have largely overlapping sets of values.

— edited by elspeth

this is weirdly problematic. given that the difference between so-called terrorist attacks and other mass killings is mainly one of connotation, why does the resolution of the question depend on the respective state authorities to arbitrate what counts and what doesn't?