I feel like one's gotta exist somewhere, but I have yet to come across them...
I'll count their display name as part of their bio, and I'll also accept variants like "E/acc". (Not things like "u/acc" or "l/acc", since those mean something different. If they have a different string and they say that it means the same thing as e/acc, then that will still count.) If they have it there in a context that indicates anything other than "I identify as part of this movement", that doesn't count. (e.g. someone can't put it there just to make this market resolve YES.)
I won't bet, please provide examples in the comments of people I should try interacting with. This is a serious question, it will resolve YES if I find anyone who identifies with the movement and seems to have a baseline level of reasoning ability, will answer questions about their beliefs in a consistent manner, etc. They can be pseudonymous, but it needs to be a real account, not someone with like, 3 followers.
Resolves NO if none can be found by the end of the year.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ920 | |
| 2 | Ṁ238 | |
| 3 | Ṁ232 | |
| 4 | Ṁ167 | |
| 5 | Ṁ134 |
@JohnMelek That's an interesting last-minute bet. Do you have any evidence towards YES that you'd like to submit before I resolve this market?
@IsaacKing Thanks for waiting. BasedBeffJezos' interview is already mentioned below in the comments. I am not the biggest fan of his ideology but still, it still does count that he talked about the risks. He neither denies the risks or propose solutions to solve them. If that's what you were expecting, then you should resolve this to NO.
Denying the risks is stupid for anyone.. but my understanding of the whole e/acc movement is the following: it's already too late to try to contain AI and bring it back to an isolated lab. If there are already any evildoers who are gonna exploit it, they already have enough tools to cause serious non-reversible harm (or move in that direction) and the only way left is to accelerate as much as possible to try to reach superiority before anyone else.
@JohnMelek I think that's one of the things they like to say, yes. Another is that it's a terminal moral good to increase entropy, and another is that increasing entropy is an instrumental good because it's correlated with human well-being. I doubt any of those three reasons are their true motivation, and none of them are good reasons.
He does deny the risks, see the p(doom) section.
@shankypanky Yep it's terrible, jump to the p(doom) section and there are immediate misrepresentations of probability theory, dodging the question, Bulverism, etc. No serious attempt made to justify his position at all.
@IsaacKing oh I'm walking down the street listening but it hasn't popped onto my podcast app yet so I've just been listening to the start on YT
I'll ff to p(doom) though honestly I would have been much more stunned if he came through here with something wildly different from my past experiences with him
not zero but a long shot
redacted
I'm wondering whether I should resolve this market N/A. Regardless of whether it's intended legitimately, it does come off as pretty mean, and the resolution criteria are poorly defined and don't match the title. e.g. there could be an intellectually honest member who just doesn't have the time to talk about their beliefs on Twitter.
@IsaacKing The title just sounds like bait to attract participation.
I think you conveyed pretty clearly to traders that you were looking to learn that a twitter "e/acc" person measures up to your overtly subjective, non-exhaustively-specified requirements in the ballpark of 'doesn't have disturbingly bad epistemics'.
The NO holders subsidized your stated goal of finding someone that resolves this YES, while the longterm YES holders kind of soaked up some of this incentive.
If you are concerned about random outsiders viewing this market and making judgements without the context, you could make it non-publicly listed and/or change the title?
@IsaacKing do you mean that they will speak with you intelligently about risk, or in general?
@VAPOR You can see a market's edit history via the "history" button at the bottom of the market details popup.
@IsaacKing "intelligent and intellectually-honest person" is now "will talk intelligently about AI risk?"
It started with fake beff calling you effeminate or something, then you meta'd with a valid retort here, then went from Garry Tan and real Beff are are not up to some intellectual standard, which then slid to has unreasonable beliefs on AI risk, while you're considering N/A'ing it, before Lex drops?
That's the bias anyway 💅🏽💅🏽
Edit: he blocked me for this comment
@IsaacKing anyone with eacc in their Twitter bio is expected to prove themselves intelligent, intellectually honest, and able to talk intelligently about AI xrisk, in ~140 characters~?
Looks like you have to take a target eacc bio off Twitter and out into the long form format in order to take any of the submitted so far eaccs and evaluate them fairly for your criteria...
I'm not submitting roon here, but he keeps getting accused of being a radical secret eacc, his pinned tweet (a blog post) was such a good example of stimulating your criteria, while his tweets are... tweets, short form, hard to cherry pick for well, anything... But if he ever broke out from Twitter onto a podcast your criteria would look, flawed...
I guess though he has tweets which are closer to your standards in his history, but that's not his twitter posting style really
Edit:
I've created a bounty on this.
https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/find-me-an-intellectually-honest-me
Well, they've now graduated to just lying about easily verifiable facts.
@JimAusman if you mean Garry Tan Isaac responded about him in the early comments on this thread
@shankypanky picking three tweets and saying "don't look good" isn't very good resolutioning, that said I couldn't find any either when I scrolled a few pages, it's just who they are as a head of a big VC company, it puts them in a position of having to not just shitpost, it's their professional identity and I find it hard to believe they're irrational and obtuse all the time