God dammit guys we had a sweet gig going! Just keep voting 1% and we all make points!
(This is my protest against this resolution method.)
@Jgalt Can you explain why? Aliens vs. civil war seems like a pretty strange comparison to me; civil war should be several orders of magnitude more likely I'd say.
I don't like how I am now incentivised to guess 1% since that will almost surely get me some quick points, even though my true credence is more like 20%. Were I to guess 20%, it would probably stay below 3% anyway since I'm so outnumbered, and I would just lose points even if I'm actually right.
Wait no, going down to 25% after reading this: https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/123063413610…
How much will funding for biorisk prevention increase after coronavirus?
We could look at specific organizations, like the CDC, and see if their 2021 budgets are substantially bigger than their 2020 or 2019 budgets.
— edited by kokotajlod
It feels a bit weird to me to read this question, with its excellent summary of some reasons to think the answer will be Yes, but not a word of argument that the answer will be No. Surely there is some other Medium post out there with arguments for No, right? Anyhow I don't mean this as a major critique, I just wanted to flag that it would be nice to have both sides represented at the top.
This investor report summarizes the state of AI in 2020 and makes a few predictions about the next year (slide 172) I think it would be interesting to put some of their predictions on metaculus:
--Attention-based neural nets achieve multiple SOTA results in computer vision --Beefier version: ALL SOTA results in computer vision come from attention-based neural nets by end of 2021 --An AI-based drug discovery startup IPOs or is bought for $1B+ --Chinese and European AI-based defense startups raise $100M+ between them
@Jgalt This makes me wonder if part of the reason why experts are saying vaccines are far away is that they want to scare people into taking containment measures now. Or, to put it another way, they are worried about people dragging their feet due to lazy hope in a vaccine. It's a perfectly reasonable utility-maximizing PR policy, I think.
@metani Nice. In scenarios where actually the virus did escape from the lab, and her tests showed as much, would she have been able to say so publicly? Would the government have pressured her to say that the tests came back negative, such that by mid-March an article like this could be written?? (Seems to me the answers are no and yes, respectively)
Can someone explain to me why it is likely that there will be ~10M cases? If this thing is contained, won't it probably be contained before then? (It's really hard to contain a disease once it has infected 10M people around the world!) If this thing is not contained, won't it infect substantially more than 10M people?
@Sylvain But, like, why isn't that all priced into the market by now? Heck, for all we know the market is overreacting, with tons of people panic-selling their stocks, and it's going up from here...
Or not. IDK. But surely the mere fact that coronavirus will get worse is basically no evidence at all; what matters is whether the market will be pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised.
What do people think about the hypothesis that summer will stop it? As far as I can tell, warm-weather countries really do seem to be handling this virus pretty well; even if some of them have good healthcare systems plenty of them don't, and it's been long enough now that I am starting to doubt the "cases are just going unreported" counterargument.
Maybe the thought is, summer will slow it down but not stop it (since half the world will be in winter) and it'll be really big by then anyway?
I'd be very interested in a version of this question for 2030 or 2035 instead of 2050. Failing that, anyone here care to comment with an answer? Should I assume it is something like 20%, extrapolating from the current 2050 aggregate answer?