Ok, I misread one of gwern’s replies. My original intent was to extract money from the fact that gwern gave (from my vantage point) too high a probability of this being a scam.
Under my original version of the terms, if his P(scam) was .1:
he would expect to get $1000 .1 of the time
he would expect to lose $100 .9 of the time
yielding an expected value of $10
Under my original version of the terms, if his P(scam) was .05:
he would expect to get $1000 .05 of the time
he would expect to lose $100 .95 of the time
yielding an expected value of -$45
In the second case, he would of course not want to take that bet. I’d thus like to amend my suggested conditions to have gwern only put $52 at stake against my $1000. For any P(scam) > .05 this is a positive expected value, so I would expect it to have been satisfactory to gwern[19 August 2012 01:53:58AM].
on 1 January 2013, if CI confirms that she is really dying and has or is in the process of signing up with membership & life insurance, then I will pay you $52; if they confirm the opposite, confirm nothing, or she has made no progress, you will pay me $1000.
In case of a dispute, another LWer can adjudicate; I nominate Eliezer, Carl Shulman, Luke, or Yvain (I haven’t asked but I doubt all would decline).
For me, paying with Paypal is most convenient, but if it isn’t for you we can arrange something else (perhaps you’d prefer I pay the $52 to a third party or charity). I can accept Paypal or Bitcoin.
Oh right; I’m so used to cryonics funding always being life insurance I forgot it wouldn’t apply here. Hm… I was trying for some sort of verification of financial commitment to being preserved. Suggestions on wording?
Ok, I misread one of gwern’s replies. My original intent was to extract money from the fact that gwern gave (from my vantage point) too high a probability of this being a scam.
Under my original version of the terms, if his P(scam) was .1:
he would expect to get $1000 .1 of the time
he would expect to lose $100 .9 of the time
yielding an expected value of $10
Under my original version of the terms, if his P(scam) was .05:
he would expect to get $1000 .05 of the time
he would expect to lose $100 .95 of the time
yielding an expected value of -$45
In the second case, he would of course not want to take that bet. I’d thus like to amend my suggested conditions to have gwern only put $52 at stake against my $1000. For any P(scam) > .05 this is a positive expected value, so I would expect it to have been satisfactory to gwern[19 August 2012 01:53:58AM].
Alright then, I accept. The wager is thus:
on 1 January 2013, if CI confirms that she is really dying and has or is in the process of signing up with membership & life insurance, then I will pay you $52; if they confirm the opposite, confirm nothing, or she has made no progress, you will pay me $1000.
In case of a dispute, another LWer can adjudicate; I nominate Eliezer, Carl Shulman, Luke, or Yvain (I haven’t asked but I doubt all would decline).
For me, paying with Paypal is most convenient, but if it isn’t for you we can arrange something else (perhaps you’d prefer I pay the $52 to a third party or charity). I can accept Paypal or Bitcoin.
This isn’t fair. She probably can’t get life insurance with a terminal diagnosis. She’s more likely to pay for the suspension outright.
Oh right; I’m so used to cryonics funding always being life insurance I forgot it wouldn’t apply here. Hm… I was trying for some sort of verification of financial commitment to being preserved. Suggestions on wording?
My understanding is that if CI confirms this, they’re likely to set up a fund, which is what I plan to donate to.
I’m not sure at what point during the process CI would take the suspension money, so I don’t know.