@NikitaSkovoroda Then why not go sell that one, you got 12.5k YES there? Just because a whale is propping that doesn’t mean everything else must be as they say. The proper arb is you go there kill that whale not the minnows here.

@NikitaSkovoroda Also, far from the same criteria. This “AI kills” specifically requires deaths caused by AI decisions. There it’s just correlation “will humans or AI be here or not” (misleading title).

@deagol Why should I sell that one when I think that both of those are lower than actual prob

I just bought both

@NikitaSkovoroda you say the price here can’t be lower than the one there (this is just false since the criteria are different but let’s put that aside), yet you got 1k more YES there than here. You’re buying more of something at a higher price, and talked yourself into this trap because some whale told you that’s the way.

@NikitaSkovoroda Non-AGI Ai military drones or nuclear launch systems count, so this should be a bit higher % than the same date extinction market

@JonathanRay wait I’m confused, isn’t that the exact opposite of what you told Isaac here?

This market requires deaths caused by AI, a much stronger claim than “who will be here humans or AI”. If AI is gonna survive us, there’s so many other non-AI causes for our extinction like human-launched nukes, climate stuff, asteroid, super virus, etc., and all of these cases are excluded here but count there.

@JonathanRay can’t tell the distinction you’re making, can you please clarify? thanks.

3 months ago:

“an arms race that includes AI capabilities, one country nukes another” — Isaac

“doesn't count since humans nuked other humans, AI didn’t make them do it” — Jonathan

a month ago:

“person or government tells the AI to kill people” — Adrian

“yes killbots in WW3 count if they use AI“ — Jonathan

now:

“Non-AGI Ai military drones or nuclear launch systems count“ — Jonathan

@deagol I don’t see any inconsistency there. If the nuclear launches are initiated by AI systems, it counts. If humans decide to nuke other humans to stop them from developing AI, that doesn’t count.

@JonathanRay I understood Isaac’s hypothetical as humans using AI-capable weapons systems to stop opponents from developing AGI. So basically same question as Adrian (note the AI there is not deciding to kill, only executes person or government command). Finally you mention “non-AGI AI drones” this phrase suggests to me those still don’t have agency (“non-AGI”) and remain command and control by humans, so again AI did not initiate nukes. Am I getting bogged down on a colloquial use of AI to refer to AGI in some contexts but not others? Sorry if I’m being dense.

@deagol If AI capabilities are part of weapons that humans decide to use against other humans, it counts. Kind of fuzzy where you draw the line on what counts as enough AI capabilities. It would be more than the advanced guidance systems that already exist, but less than full AGI.

@JonathanRay got it, thanks.

deaths divided by peak world population in the time period

@ahalekelly Either. Government controlled killbots in WW3 count if they use AI

@IsaacKing that doesn't count because humans made the decision to nuke other humans, without an AI manipulating them into doing it

@JonathanRay What if the nuclear targets are set using AI techniques to maximize casualties? Or if the nuclear weapons are developed using AI nuclear simulations?

@MartinRandall my phone uses AI so including anything that was designed, developed, sold, or operated with the help of AI seems way too broad to me.