Congratulations, you have entered into the legendarium @RatsWrongAboutUAP. I fully agree with you and think you will win big here. I have been trying to create a bet with Eliezer since 2021 on this same issue (I have receipts) but could not word the criteria as elegantly as you did. Now, what I wanted to comment on was expanding on one of the criteria.
The Breakaway Group. This example may not fall under any of the previous explicit examples: they are still human, they are not an ancient civilization, they are not time travellers. The Breakaway Group represents a rogue element using the cover of the national security apparatus of unacknowledged special access programs to avoid disclosures, oversight and achieve compartmentalization of tech and knowledge. This is the complicated world where the nature of these programs may not be fully revealed due to the enmeshment of the military industrial complex with the nation state, but craft and/or new technology may be revealed that still matches UFOs because they came from reverse engineering programs or recovered craft.
I would consider the above scenario satisfying the “Secret Manhattan style project with beyond next gen physics, that we had back in the 60′s” criteria, partially. But there are some additional assumptions built-in, like the potential illegal nature of Breakaway Group activities (operating without proper oversight, murder to maintain secrecy as per Grusch) meaning that it is not like the Manhattan project at all. But it would still be significantly weird to cause ontological shock, so it is likely to satisfy the same. Still, worth clarification.
I am available here or on twitter @micksabox for anyone else to offer bets under same resolution criteria, if that is allowed.
I fully agree with you and think you will win big here
Does that mean you’re willing to undercut RWAU and offer bets at substantially better-for-the-other-party odds?
RWAU says they think we’re overconfident, but without looking through the whole thread I don’t think they’ve said what their own confidence is. (Which makes sense, telling us that would be an information asymmetry that we could exploit.) They’ve accepted odds as low as 50:1, with counterparty and inflation risks, so we can infer that their confidence is presumably significantly higher than 2%. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s less than 50%.
But from the sounds of things your confidence is higher than 50%? So… can I interest you in a 1:1 bet (if we can avoid the counterparty and inflation risks)? :D
(Fwiw I think that “why would I take a 1:1 bet when it seems I can get much better odds than that” is totally a valid answer here.)
Congratulations, you have entered into the legendarium @RatsWrongAboutUAP. I fully agree with you and think you will win big here. I have been trying to create a bet with Eliezer since 2021 on this same issue (I have receipts) but could not word the criteria as elegantly as you did. Now, what I wanted to comment on was expanding on one of the criteria.
The Breakaway Group. This example may not fall under any of the previous explicit examples: they are still human, they are not an ancient civilization, they are not time travellers. The Breakaway Group represents a rogue element using the cover of the national security apparatus of unacknowledged special access programs to avoid disclosures, oversight and achieve compartmentalization of tech and knowledge. This is the complicated world where the nature of these programs may not be fully revealed due to the enmeshment of the military industrial complex with the nation state, but craft and/or new technology may be revealed that still matches UFOs because they came from reverse engineering programs or recovered craft.
I would consider the above scenario satisfying the “Secret Manhattan style project with beyond next gen physics, that we had back in the 60′s” criteria, partially. But there are some additional assumptions built-in, like the potential illegal nature of Breakaway Group activities (operating without proper oversight, murder to maintain secrecy as per Grusch) meaning that it is not like the Manhattan project at all. But it would still be significantly weird to cause ontological shock, so it is likely to satisfy the same. Still, worth clarification.
I am available here or on twitter @micksabox for anyone else to offer bets under same resolution criteria, if that is allowed.
Does that mean you’re willing to undercut RWAU and offer bets at substantially better-for-the-other-party odds?
RWAU says they think we’re overconfident, but without looking through the whole thread I don’t think they’ve said what their own confidence is. (Which makes sense, telling us that would be an information asymmetry that we could exploit.) They’ve accepted odds as low as 50:1, with counterparty and inflation risks, so we can infer that their confidence is presumably significantly higher than 2%. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s less than 50%.
But from the sounds of things your confidence is higher than 50%? So… can I interest you in a 1:1 bet (if we can avoid the counterparty and inflation risks)? :D
(Fwiw I think that “why would I take a 1:1 bet when it seems I can get much better odds than that” is totally a valid answer here.)