@JonathanShi From this picture it looks like the WIV might have around 400 employees http://english.whiov.cas.cn/About_Us2016/Brie…, flu affects 5-10% of the population each year, mainly during flu season (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html). The time period is rather vague, say 3-5% are likely to get flu during "Autumn". Then several getting flu in Autumn is all but guaranteed, so I agree with your assessment.

I wonder if people are underestimating the scope for outcomes of the type "AI that is bad for a lot of people, but neutral/good for a lot of people too"

— edited by orion.tjungarryi

@johnnycaffeine "most definitely not yes or ambiguous. If that were the case, then the rational thing would be to put 99% and realize that there would be no chance of losing any points here"

The way this question resolves depends on Metaculus standards (which I am not especially familiar with). The fact that a likely ambiguous resolution would create bad incentives might inform the standards, but it shouldn't directly inform the resolution.

Should this be resolved @Matthew_Barnett ? According to the New York Times, the FBI "backs the lab leak theory" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/politics/coronavirus-origin-intelligence-report.html The summary of their assessment is given in the official report as: "One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give wei...
As a general comment on the discussion around this question: questions like "will X indicate that they believe Y?" seem like they might generally be hard to pose precisely without making positive resolution quite unlikely. The more precise you make Y, the less likely it is that X indicates that they believe precisely Y. Maybe questions of this type would benefit from allowing a range of Ys (e.g. will X indicate belief in lab pathogen release or lab accident or pandemic attributable to lab activity), or deliberately allowing some vagueness for what cou...

@silly I also don't know which way to move it. Do papers often scrap stories if someone else publishes first? If I imagine that they're tyring to publish stories that people are interested in reading, it seems more likely to me that if another outlet publishes a story on relatively unknown topic X then the number of people interested in reading a story on topic X will increase.

@gumbo interesting. It seems like a fairly reasonable request - it's Soviet film archives, not contemporary content ... but it also seems not an issue worth blocking YouTube over. So I can't really tell between a) they're looking to negotiate with YouTube and making a reasonable starting demand and b) they're looking for an excuse

@(qjh) it occurs in other coronaviruses, but not in sars-related betacoronaviruses ("sarbecoviruses"). This is shown in section 2.2 and Figure 3 of your link. Quote from the parent article: "Beta-coronaviruses will only combine with other beta-coronaviruses but can acquire, by recombination, almost any genetic element present in the collective genomic pool. What they cannot acquire is an element the pool does not possess. And no known SARS-related beta-coronavirus, the class to which SARS2 belongs, possesses a furin cleavage site." While the above isn'...
This was interesting new evidence to me, but ultimately not very impactful. The claim: - SARS CoV2 contamination was found in metagenomic samples taken in Antarctica in 2018-2019 - Samples were submitted for sequencing in December 2019, results obtained in Jan 2020 - Official claim is that SARS CoV2 was discovered Dec 30/31; contamination must have come from samples run together with or prior to the Antarctic samples, so the date of this work seems to have been close to the earliest known sequences - The phylogenetics seems to fit better with these...

@thisreader Also, "demilitarisation" is a vague term that could mean many things, clarifying that it means "not having specific weapons" is one of the mildest clarifications possible

@cmeinel I would take all of these reports with a grain of salt

Edit: il-76 shoot downs confirmed

— edited by orion.tjungarryi

Large cyber attack on Ukraine internet coinciding with big assault on Kyiv https://twitter.com/netblocks/status/14974094…

Lots of gunfire audible in central Kyiv at the time of posting https://youtu.be/-Q7FuPINDjA

I think you're all moving too slowly. I'm at 4% Trump.

My main thought about how this resolves "yes" is if the definition of "core human cognitive capabilities", which is a bit vague at the moment, ends up being quite specialised to what humans are good at, which has probably already happened to some extent. For example, there might be some tasks that require simulating other people (e.g. persuading other people) that turn out to benefit from the "native emulation" that humans have. If this does not happen, I think the chance that WBE gets to "human level AI" first is extremely low, given how far behind it ...

65% as the incumbent advantage, Biden 70% to run again, 50-50 otherwise.

If you want a higher probability, send it twice

@johnnycaffeine I downvoted because I think the NYT headline is irrelevant to how this question should resolve, and I'd prefer that resolution discussions focus on relevant facts and issues of question interpretation. I've removed the downvote and replaced it with this reply.

I currently rate the fact of a lab leak at 75%, I think any US gov investigation will have a 50% chance of waffling inconclusively and there may be 2 or 3 such investigations between now and June 2022. If there is a lab leak, they will conclude that there was 32.5% of the time and if there was no lab leak they will conclude there was one 10% of the time. Conclusions will not be entirely independent.

Maths is too hard, but 53% seems right.

@TeeJayKay Yes, as far as I can tell looking at archived versions of the page, the first ever report of this type was published in November 2021

@(orion.tjungarryi) More precise dates: "Virus was first isolated on Dec 24-27, and virus genome sequence was first determined on Dec 27." https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1251855988677914627 I think there's a reasonable chance that this was the result of isolation + sequencing post discovery. For example, this report suggests that there was 2-day turnaround between obtaining samples and isolation + sequencing, so it's possible to move quite quickly: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/212/10/isolation-and-rapid-sharing-2019-novel-coronavirus-sa...