5 ms·

If you believe this article, I would be happy to bet up to $10,000 that OpenAI will not collapse in the next 24 months. We could operationalize this by saying t

If you believe this article, I would be happy to bet up to $10,000 that OpenAI will not collapse in the next 24 months. We could operationalize this by saying that OpenAI will employ at least as many people (or pay at least as much in salaries) in 24 months as it does now. The author of the article refused to take this bet when it was offered to him several times https://x.com/JeffLadish/status/1817999232105627722 https://x.com/JeffLadish/status/1817999232105627722.

asp_hornet 2y ago
so we should only listen to the hypotheses of gamblers? The author shouldnt even feel the need to acknowledge the bet. So petty
- why_only_15 2y ago
  If you are making predictions about the world, you should be willing to put money on those predictions so that you are grounded to making predictions that you actually believe in as opposed to just blathering.
  - kjrfghslkdjfl 2y ago
    This is too reductionist. There's a lot of reasons why someone could turn down that bet, other than "he's just blathering". Maybe he's very confidently down on OpenAI but 10k is a lot of money for him, and is being offered a bet by someone who's a noise generator but who's very well off, for whom 10k means nothing. If you think these people don't exist, you should visit WSB. I evaluate arguments on their own merit, not based on extraneous data like appeal to authority or what bets the author makes.
  - sifar 2y ago
    Predictions can go wrong for any number of reasons beyond one's thesis. One can be right about what but wrong about when. To bet money on that just to satisfy ones (and others) ego is foolish. To recognize that is wisdom.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - edzitron 2y ago
    See, this is just a weak argument. This was thousands of words of hypotheses backed up with data and citation. Dismissing it as "blathering" and then demanding I make a bet based on your terms isn't an argument, nor is it a particularly compelling idea - you haven't engaged with my work, nor my arguments, nor my actual ideas. You are, on some level, suggesting that money is a more compelling argument than an actual argument, because that is your only response.
  - m463 2y ago
    I think the common way to do this is to put 10k into openai stock, or short it. (Instead of engaging with some some random internet commenteer.)
    - swifthesitation 2y ago
      It would have to be a publicly traded company for this to be an option...
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  It's exactly the opposite! Prediction/betting markets are possibly the most/only reliable way to forecast things with otherwise limited information. Prediction Markets are extremely accurate since being wrong makes people poor and they use every trick in the book to not be poor.
tivert 2y ago
> The author of the article refused to take this bet when it was offered to him several times https://x.com/JeffLadish/status/1817999232105627722 https://x.com/JeffLadish/status/1817999232105627722. So what? No one has participate in the "rationalist" subculture's weird practices. It means nothing to refuse to take a bet like that, let alone that the claims made in the article are suspect (which you seem to be implying). [I can't actually read anything beyond the tweet you linked because twitter is stupid].
- comp_throw7 2y ago
  > No one has participate in the "rationalist" subculture's weird practices. True! > It means nothing to refuse to take a bet like that, let alone that the claims made in the article are suspect (which you seem to be implying). False! If the author was sufficiently confident in their claims, they'd be happy to take the free money (or, if they're sufficiently liquidity-constrained, propose a smaller bet at similar terms). You can certainly argue that the practice of betting on one's beliefs is "weird" but that objection is circular. If you claim to see free money on the ground, and other people notice that you aren't picking it up, they would be correct to wonder why.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    the market can stay irrational liner than you can stay solvent though, and $10k is a lot of money to bet for those of us who didn't get crypto rich. refusing to take part in your weird games doesn't say what you think it does.
  - tivert 2y ago
    You need to come up for air. You seem to be stuck so deep in that weird subculture's "logic" that you're having trouble imagining someone who isn't. I don't gamble, and even if I did I certainly wouldn't take a bet for a large sum of money with some internet rando playing a rhetorical game.
    - why_only_15 2y ago
      If you are making a prediction about the world, why not gamble on it? It shows to others that you have an actual stake as opposed to blathering.
lovethevoid 2y ago
The employee angle seems cowardly as investor pumping would keep that artificially high. Why not profitability?
danjl 2y ago
Companies die slowly. It will definitely take longer than two years before the company is gone, but you will know it's on its way out long before it happens.
dmitrygr 2y ago
You are so sure you're right, what odds are you offering?

asp_hornet 2y ago

so we should only listen to the hypotheses of gamblers? The author shouldnt even feel the need to acknowledge the bet. So petty

why_only_15 2y ago
If you are making predictions about the world, you should be willing to put money on those predictions so that you are grounded to making predictions that you actually believe in as opposed to just blathering.
- kjrfghslkdjfl 2y ago
  This is too reductionist. There's a lot of reasons why someone could turn down that bet, other than "he's just blathering". Maybe he's very confidently down on OpenAI but 10k is a lot of money for him, and is being offered a bet by someone who's a noise generator but who's very well off, for whom 10k means nothing. If you think these people don't exist, you should visit WSB. I evaluate arguments on their own merit, not based on extraneous data like appeal to authority or what bets the author makes.
- sifar 2y ago
  Predictions can go wrong for any number of reasons beyond one's thesis. One can be right about what but wrong about when. To bet money on that just to satisfy ones (and others) ego is foolish. To recognize that is wisdom.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- edzitron 2y ago
  See, this is just a weak argument. This was thousands of words of hypotheses backed up with data and citation. Dismissing it as "blathering" and then demanding I make a bet based on your terms isn't an argument, nor is it a particularly compelling idea - you haven't engaged with my work, nor my arguments, nor my actual ideas. You are, on some level, suggesting that money is a more compelling argument than an actual argument, because that is your only response.
- m463 2y ago
  I think the common way to do this is to put 10k into openai stock, or short it. (Instead of engaging with some some random internet commenteer.)
  - swifthesitation 2y ago
    It would have to be a publicly traded company for this to be an option...
Der_Einzige 2y ago
It's exactly the opposite! Prediction/betting markets are possibly the most/only reliable way to forecast things with otherwise limited information. Prediction Markets are extremely accurate since being wrong makes people poor and they use every trick in the book to not be poor.

tivert 2y ago

> The author of the article refused to take this bet when it was offered to him several times https://x.com/JeffLadish/status/1817999232105627722 https://x.com/JeffLadish/status/1817999232105627722. So what? No one has participate in the "rationalist" subculture's weird practices. It means nothing to refuse to take a bet like that, let alone that the claims made in the article are suspect (which you seem to be implying). [I can't actually read anything beyond the tweet you linked because twitter is stupid].

comp_throw7 2y ago
> No one has participate in the "rationalist" subculture's weird practices. True! > It means nothing to refuse to take a bet like that, let alone that the claims made in the article are suspect (which you seem to be implying). False! If the author was sufficiently confident in their claims, they'd be happy to take the free money (or, if they're sufficiently liquidity-constrained, propose a smaller bet at similar terms). You can certainly argue that the practice of betting on one's beliefs is "weird" but that objection is circular. If you claim to see free money on the ground, and other people notice that you aren't picking it up, they would be correct to wonder why.
- fragmede 2y ago
  the market can stay irrational liner than you can stay solvent though, and $10k is a lot of money to bet for those of us who didn't get crypto rich. refusing to take part in your weird games doesn't say what you think it does.
- tivert 2y ago
  You need to come up for air. You seem to be stuck so deep in that weird subculture's "logic" that you're having trouble imagining someone who isn't. I don't gamble, and even if I did I certainly wouldn't take a bet for a large sum of money with some internet rando playing a rhetorical game.
  - why_only_15 2y ago
    If you are making a prediction about the world, why not gamble on it? It shows to others that you have an actual stake as opposed to blathering.

lovethevoid 2y ago

The employee angle seems cowardly as investor pumping would keep that artificially high. Why not profitability?

danjl 2y ago

Companies die slowly. It will definitely take longer than two years before the company is gone, but you will know it's on its way out long before it happens.

dmitrygr 2y ago

You are so sure you're right, what odds are you offering?