ideas that are useful in some of these scenarios (e.g. build a nuclear bunker) they’re totally wasted in the other scenarios.
That kind of goes with the territory of “high variance”. If there were a simple passive investment that would be valuable in the vast majority of futures, we’d call it “low variance”.
First, even if it’s not as large a proportion as would be predicted in past decades/centuries, put a fair bit of weight on “regular disruption, not singularity”. There’s a good chance that for the next 10-30 years people will still want similar things as they do now, and will work and pay for them in similar ways. Things will shift, but not radically. This implies that a majority of investment should be “standard”. DURING that time, you should re-evaluate on an annual or so basis, as horizons and predictions will shift. Still, “standard mutual fund investing, with a bit of more speculative (crypto) thrown in if you enjoy it” is a great default for things where you don’t have a better idea in the next 1-3 years.
The more interesting categories are active, rather than passive. You note that improving your capabilities is more time and personal-energy constrained, but be open to opportunities where investment can accelerate it. Taking classes, buying equipment, etc. are often well worth it (and often wastes—you still need to evaluate the likely ROI).
Another active option is founding and running a business. In many areas, if you’re reasonably smart and able-bodied, you can do well with a fairly small seed by flipping houses (buy, do minor repairs and improvements, sell) or by renting them for a semi-passive income stream (I say semi-passive, because it’s tricky to make a profit unless you can do a lot of the management and maintenance work yourself or have an established network of people to hire). Consulting or independent software likewise is pretty demanding and iffy, but can scale to a pretty flexible (that is, appropriate in many futures) investment.
[ obDisclaimer: I am not qualified to, and I am not in fact giving investment, legal, or business advice. ]
I have considered running a business, and various other ways to make more money, but actually have moved away from making money towards trying really hard to do what I can to make the future more likely to go better. A good-outcome singularity floats all boats!
So anyone who thinks they have even remotely the sort of competence which could help build aligned AI should work on that, even if they think they aren’t of the highest caliber or not seeing immediate positive benefits accruing from their initial attempts. I’m definitely of the opinion that the more people we can get working on it the better (provided that you don’t hinder the best thinkers with the fumbling of the worst).
That kind of goes with the territory of “high variance”. If there were a simple passive investment that would be valuable in the vast majority of futures, we’d call it “low variance”.
First, even if it’s not as large a proportion as would be predicted in past decades/centuries, put a fair bit of weight on “regular disruption, not singularity”. There’s a good chance that for the next 10-30 years people will still want similar things as they do now, and will work and pay for them in similar ways. Things will shift, but not radically. This implies that a majority of investment should be “standard”. DURING that time, you should re-evaluate on an annual or so basis, as horizons and predictions will shift. Still, “standard mutual fund investing, with a bit of more speculative (crypto) thrown in if you enjoy it” is a great default for things where you don’t have a better idea in the next 1-3 years.
The more interesting categories are active, rather than passive. You note that improving your capabilities is more time and personal-energy constrained, but be open to opportunities where investment can accelerate it. Taking classes, buying equipment, etc. are often well worth it (and often wastes—you still need to evaluate the likely ROI).
Another active option is founding and running a business. In many areas, if you’re reasonably smart and able-bodied, you can do well with a fairly small seed by flipping houses (buy, do minor repairs and improvements, sell) or by renting them for a semi-passive income stream (I say semi-passive, because it’s tricky to make a profit unless you can do a lot of the management and maintenance work yourself or have an established network of people to hire). Consulting or independent software likewise is pretty demanding and iffy, but can scale to a pretty flexible (that is, appropriate in many futures) investment.
[ obDisclaimer: I am not qualified to, and I am not in fact giving investment, legal, or business advice. ]
I have considered running a business, and various other ways to make more money, but actually have moved away from making money towards trying really hard to do what I can to make the future more likely to go better. A good-outcome singularity floats all boats!
So anyone who thinks they have even remotely the sort of competence which could help build aligned AI should work on that, even if they think they aren’t of the highest caliber or not seeing immediate positive benefits accruing from their initial attempts. I’m definitely of the opinion that the more people we can get working on it the better (provided that you don’t hinder the best thinkers with the fumbling of the worst).
Further thoughts here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WRSLEdvsbucBDiast/how-to-plan-for-a-radically-uncertain-future?commentId=YFXi8TrKvbCvxbkYT