You mean an AI ETF? My answer is no; I think making your own portfolio (based on advice in this post and elsewhere) will be a lot better.
Jonas V
Karma: 1,327
Very helpful, thanks. And interesting about the Eris SOFR Swap Futures.
Interest rate swaptions might also be worth looking into, though they may only be available to large institutional investors.
Why not just short-sell treasuries (e.g. TLT)?
If you’re running an event and Lighthaven isn’t an option for some reason, you may be interested in Atlantis: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pvz53LTgFEPtnaWbP/atlantis-berkeley-event-venue-available-for-rent
Market on the primary claim discussed here:
I personally would not put Meta on the list
Yes, but if they’re far out of the money, they are a more capital-efficient way to make a very concentrated bet on outlier growth scenarios.
No, but I also didn’t reach out (mostly because I’m lazy/busy)
There’s some evidence from 2013 suggesting that long-dated, out-of-the-money call options have strongly negative EV; common explanations are that some buyers like gambling and drive up prices. See this article. I also heard that over the last decade, some hedge funds therefore adopted the strategy of writing OTM calls on stocks they hold to boost their returns, and also heard that some of these hedge funds disappeared a couple years ago.
Has anyone looked into whether 1) this has replicated more recently, 2) how much worse it makes some of the suggested strategies (if at all)?
I meant something like the Fed intervening to buy lots of bonds (including long-dated ones), without particularly thinking of YCC, though perhaps that’s the main regime under which they might do it?
Are there strong reasons to believe that the Fed wouldn’t buy lots of (long-dated) bonds if interest rates increased a lot?
How did you get SMSN exposure?
This looked really reasonable until I saw that there was no NVDA in there; why’s that? (You might say high PE, but note that Forward PE is much lower.)
Having another $1 billion to prevent AGI x-risk would be pretty useful.
Just like the last 12 months was the time of the chatbots, the next 12 months will be the time of agent-like AI product releases.
The current AI x-risk grantmaking ecosystem is bad and could be improved substantially.
Having another $1 billion to prevent AGI x-risk would be useful because we could spend it on large-scale lobbying efforts in DC.
Having another $1 billion to prevent AGI x-risk would be useful because we could spend it on large compute budgets for safety research teams.
Investing in early-stage AGI companies helps with reducing x-risk (via mission hedging, having board seats, shareholder activism)
Yeah, that does also feel right to me. I have been thinking about setting up some fund that maybe buys up a bunch of the equity that’s held by safety researchers, so that the safety researchers don’t have to also blow up their financial portfolio when they press the stop button or do some whistleblowing or whatever, and that does seem pretty incentive wise.
I’m interested in helping with making this happen.
What’s the story for why we would have an advantage here? Surely quants who specialize in this area are on top of this, and aren’t constrained by capital? Unlike previous trades where rationalists made lots of money (Covid short, ETH presale, etc.), this doesn’t look like a really weird thing that the pros would be unable to do with sufficient volume.