Will Eliezer Yudkowsky win his $150,000 - $1,000 bet about UFOs not having a worldview-shattering origin?
192
closes 2029
96%
chance

Original Lesswrong thread here.

Original tweet here:

Get Ṁ500 play money

Related questions

If Aella bangs Eliezer Yudkowsky before Tuesday, will she really enjoy it?
PoppleEgg avatarPopple Egg
58% chance
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky write a tweet containing the word "rationalussy" by the end of 2023?
SG avatarS G
60% chance
Will this Yudkowsky tweet hold up? (2024 version)
GeorgeVii avatarGeorgeVii
61% chance
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky be interviewed on Joe Rogan's podcast by the end of 2023?
au_ avatar_au_
28% chance
Will this Yudkowsky tweet hold up?
journcy avatarjourncy
85% chance
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky or his ideas be mentioned during the September 27, 2023 Republican Presidential debate?
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky tweet the word "rationalussy" on December 31, 2023?
JosephNoonan avatarPlasma Ballin'
30% chance
Is Eliezer Yudkowsky the author of The Waves Arisen?
rictic avatarrictic
49% chance
Will Grimes follow Julian Hazell on Twitter before Eliezer Yudkowsky does?
Rodeo avatarRodeo
68% chance
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky be a guest on the 80000 hours podcast in 2023?
harfe avatarharfe
35% chance
Is Syzygy on the Glowfic constellation an alternate account of Eliezer Yudkowsky?
Arete avatarArete
38% chance
Will Eliezer believe in mankind's survival again?
marktweise avatarMarktweise
57% chance
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky go on the Tim Ferriss Show podcast by the end of 2023?
Tripping avatarTripping
40% chance
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky go on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast by the end of 2024?
Tripping avatarTripping
51% chance
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky and George Hotz have a second public debate by Halloween?
Joshua avatarJoshua
14% chance
Would Eliezer Yudkowsky Press a Button that Ensured a 95% Probability of Doom?
marcer avatarmarc/er
38% chance
Will there be a public discussion between Goeffrey Hinton and Eliezer Yudkowsky?
marktweise avatarMarktweise
13% chance
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky go on the DarkHorse Podcast by 2025?
Metastable avatarMetastable
38% chance
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky appear on an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience and have it air before 2024?
Moonchine avatarMoonchine
27% chance
Will Eliezer Yudkowsky appear on Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast in 2023?
JakobBrunker avatarJakob Brünker
22% chance
Sort by:
IsaacKing avatar
Isaac

A related market on the object-level claim:

SteveSokolowski avatar
Steve Sokolowskipredicts NO

I created a new market for this that (I at least believe) is better worded to capture the possible outcomes of the UFO debate and which does not rely on Yudkowsky's opinions, statements of particular people, or arbitrary timetables.

There currently exists a significant arbitrage opportunity; if unprecedented fraud is one of the outcomes that Yudkowsky would be surprised by, then this market is far overvalued at 95%.

https://manifold.markets/SteveSokolowski/what-is-going-on-with-david-gruschs-de3add9e7579#BUihBG3wfbLsbnS7jfqr

What is going on with David Grusch's UFO claims?
There are a lot of UFO markets, but this is the first with mutually exclusive choices and no arbitrarily-selected timetable to try to explain DoD whistleblower David Grusch's claims. Intelligence officer David Grusch stated on July 26, 2023 in a hearing under oath that the US government possessed craft of non-human origin. He claimed that there is an ongoing government conspiracy to cover up research on these objects that is misappropriating taxpayer funds. The claims led Chuck Schumer to add over 50 pages of text in the National Defense Authorization Act asserting perhaps the most sweeping use of eminient domain in US history. The bill, which was passed by the Senate, mandates, among other things, contractors turn over these craft and create a scientific committee to evaluate evidence of non-human intelligence. To illustrate how strange and improbable any outcome to the situation is, I created a market that shows there are only four ways that Grusch's claims can resolve. It is intended that the market MUST resolve to one of these four choices; if I have the wrong wording or a logic error, please correct me in a comment. The market resolves to Non-human intelligence if non-human intelligence exists in any form, and that intelligence has influenced any person, animal, or event on Earth at any time in the past or present. A single sighting or even "ESP feeling" caused by the NHI would be sufficient. NHI is defined as a phenomenon not created by humans that can achieve goals with at least the capability of GPT-3.5. #2, #3, or #4's truth are not relevant. The market resolves to Advanced human technology if UFOs are the result of wildly advanced technology created by humans that has been kept secret from the public for 85 years. It requires #1 to be false and #3 and #4 are not relevant. The market resolves to Massive fraud if contractors and/or officials have been creating fake UFO videos and spreading misinformation for 85 years as a method to discredit investigations and siphon taxpayer dollars for unauthorized or nonexistent work. It requires #1 and #2 to be false and #4 is not relevant. The market resolves to Multiple counts of perjury if Grusch and/or the 40 witnesses that reported to him are lying and the Intelligence Community Inspector General's conclusion that the claims were "credible and urgent" was not true, because #1, #2, and #3 are all false. The market will remain open until the scientific community widely accepts one of the choices. Gemini, which updates training date nightly (or whatever the frontier model is at the time) will be used to resolve the market if there is disagreement. It will resolve N/A if I made a mistake in making the choices mutually exclusive and I cannot correct the text without being unfair to people who have previously bet.
3 replies
MartinRandall avatar
Martin Randallpredicts YES

@SteveSokolowski Yudkowsky probably would not be surprised by unprecedented fraud, he has written on the failings of our species.

JonasVollmer avatar
Jonas Vollmerpredicts YES

@SteveSokolowski This market here does not rely on Eliezer's opinion, see the LessWrong post

JonasVollmer avatar
Jonas Vollmerpredicts YES

@SteveSokolowski It relies on the broader opinion of rationalists though, which you might think is not a good metric

BTE avatar
Brian T. Edwards

Regardless of origin, if they break the laws of physics as we know them today it’s world shattering even if someone built the fucking thing in their garage.

2 replies
MartinRandall avatar
Martin Randallbought Ṁ0 of YES

@BTE criteria for anyone who didn't click through:

Merely advanced "normal" human tech would NOT count (+2 gens stealth aircraft/drones, advanced holograms/spoofing, etc)

...

I hereby forfeit any "gotcha" cases.

I'm not trying to be slick or capitalize on technicalities. A world in which I win is one where the community would broadly agree that I won.

I think "physics-breaking" would need to be in a sense other than the discovery of quantum physics or whatever. My world model allows new physics to be discovered.

jack avatar
Jackpredicts YES

I think discovering new physics that is far beyond what we know about (not just quantum, we know about quantum) and using it to build UFOs and keeping it secret for decades would be quite surprising. The resolution criteria says:

Merely advanced "normal" human tech would NOT count (+2 gens stealth aircraft/drones, advanced holograms/spoofing, etc)

  • What WOULD count is if the story is significantly weird enough to cause ontological shock.

    • example: Secret Manhattan style project with beyond next gen physics, that we had back in the 60's

JonasVollmer avatar
Jonas Vollmerpredicts YES
12 replies
SteveSokolowski avatar
Steve Sokolowskipredicts NO

@JonasVollmer It's interesting how the odds there are dramatically improving as more information comes out about this.

I would never consider a real money bet in these circumstances because all of the bets, including Yukowsky's, are unsecured credit. For $150,000, I would want a first lien on real estate, so that I could quickly foreclose if the bet wasn't paid, and none of the bettors have done that.

JonasVollmer avatar
Jonas Vollmerpredicts YES

@SteveSokolowski The odds are improving as people are running out of money / risk aversion kicks in.

Fair point regarding unsecured credit; I'd add that a fair amount of trust is also required given there's no formal legal agreement securing the bet.

SteveSokolowski avatar
Steve Sokolowskipredicts NO

@JonasVollmer Or, it's because 20:1 is getting closer to the actual odds. If I could afford to and someone was willing to give me a lien, I would take 5:1.

I think I said elsewhere on a comment on manifold or maybe reddit or twitter: I don't know of anyone who has actually spent a lot of time researching the topic who comes out less convinced of the existence of NHI. If you haven't done so, spend 50 hours reading books and reviewing evidence and come back and say whether you believe it's all made up.

Everything is shockingly consistent. The AARO itself just yesterday said there are now 800, up from 140, reports of objects it can't explain - and over 85% of them are either the black and glass spheres, radar images like the spheres, or lights that move like the spheres at night. Everything Grusch says is consistent with the basic allegations throughout the years, except for the obviously debunked scams like crop circles. There isn't "no evidence" - the evidence something is going on is overwhelming.

It's just weird to me that Chuck Schumer puts 52 pages about non-human intelligence in the NDAA this year, Michio Kaku now thinks the burden is on the government, and you've got those who are saying this is all people having visions? I challenge someone to read for tens of hours about this topic and then come up with a more likely explanation for the 700 spheres, the sphere sightings throughout history, and the fact that 40 people made under-oath statements this year.

f avatar
RealLiespredicts NO

@SteveSokolowski I have no explanation, other than time and time again reality has proven underwealming

I would probably take 20:1 on no If I had the free money to handle it.

BTE avatar
Brian T. Edwards

@f You are getting 20:1 on NO right now!!!

BTE avatar
Brian T. Edwards

@BTE Oh haha that’s what you meant!! LMAO!!

f avatar
RealLiespredicts NO

@BTE yeah true. Might revisit this when I have some free mana. Right now I just bet 1 on yes from my "I will bet on all your markets if you bet on this one" challenge. Still, there's more rediculous long term bets, like https://manifold.markets/Tripping/will-ai-wipe-out-humanity-before-th-6d1e8126d974?r=Zg

SteveSokolowski avatar
Steve Sokolowskipredicts NO

@f Note though that even though I'm up to 20% on the existence of non-human intelligence on a bet with a random person, I wouldn't actually bet 5:1 on this market. I would stop at 90% on this market (with current disclosure levels.)

@EliezerYudkowsky is not open-minded enough to consider that he could be wrong about anything. He's at 95%+ on the destruction of the world by AI, which is ridiculous because we have no idea how the first AGI will actually work. It's not a rational position to be so certain when we don't know what type of software will run computers that could destroy the world.

To me, it's sad that someone who is obviously extremely intelligent is so hardheaded that I end up writing off almost everything he says because there is no nuance in his statements about AI or anything else. With this topic, it's clear from his counterarguments about AI and superintelligence taking over the universe which miss the point, that he has not actually thoroughly researched what the claimed facts are, because the valid counterarguments are different. It's a shame.

MartinRandall avatar
Martin Randallpredicts YES

@SteveSokolowski What are the valid counterarguments?

(off-topic, but)

SteveSokolowski avatar
Steve Sokolowskipredicts NO

@MartinRandall This is a very complex topic, but the gist is the following:

Almost nobody - not the government, not researchers, not even "abductees" whose stories are doubtful - states that there are "aliens" flying in from outer space. ET is a story created for Star Trek and even Speilberg later stated he knew the following paragraphs are more realistic but he produced what would sell his movies. That's why the term "non-human intelligence" is being standardized now in Congress. Any Manifold market created with the word "aliens" is an immediate giveaway that the person doesn't know what they're talking about.

After reading about this, if I were asked to choose a word that we already use that is most accurate to describe their conclusions, I would choose "God" instead of "aliens."

The widely held theory is that the intelligence is located in a higher dimension that we don't understand enough to describe right now, that it has been present throughout history, has influenced humanity's development, and that it is being detected this century because the military only recently developed the capabilities to understand how obvious and widespread the phenomenon is (> 1.5 million spheres per decade estimated with 2000-era technology alone.) These people do not believe that "time" has meaning when talking about it, given that it exists in more than four dimensions.

Because of that, the argument of Yudkowsky and others that once one civilization reaches superintelligence the entire Universe will be filled with paperclips doesn't validly refute the existence of the non-human intelligence in question. It would still be possible for us to "use up" almost everything we know about in this Universe to expand for all of "eternity," bother nobody, and find we're "alone" because we are simply wrong about how reality works.

The related argument, that any intelligence that visits us must be more advanced than us because the odds of existing at the same time are so slim, also fails for the same reason - that the people researching this do not believe time is fundamental to reality. In fact, the whistleblowers believe that we may actually be more advanced than them except for the technology they use to get here.

This is a vastly simplified explanation.

jonsimon avatar
Jon Simon

@SteveSokolowski You almost had me going until you got to "higher dimensional beings existing outside of time". I don't care what craft the military has supposedly seen, that kind of wild speculation is completely unjustifiable.

SteveSokolowski avatar
Steve Sokolowskipredicts NO

@jonsimon You've hit upon what my main issue with the research is. I think that part of it - the UAPs not being created by humans and the sensors detecting a huge number of encounters - is actually pretty likely. We know the UAPs are everywhere and we know the military has sensors we can't even dream about.

By the way, you can extrapolate a lot about why there is a coverup just from those two very likely statements. If both are true, then it's also true that something is present on Earth for an unknown reason, and their lack of knowledge would not be able to disprove that "abductions" are occurring, creating panic.

As to your reservations about the topic, they are very similar to mine, and we've hit upon the more nuanced counterargument Yudkowsky should also be using: it's implausible that the military possesses the technology to determine anything more about the phenomenon other than that it exists and has existed for some time.

The problem for him is that this is not a complete defense.

parhizj avatar
JRP

I briefly contemplated two scenarios in what I think people imagine as the impacts for their daily lives: ET regularly interacting with human society versus AGI/super intelligence interacting with human society. And I feel that AGI impacts are more familiar and seems easier to extrapolate (something derived in part from human effort) than alien impacts (since aliens would be derived from alien evolution/alien engineering) so I believe it’s natural for people to assign aliens a lower probability.

2 replies
SteveSokolowski avatar
Steve Sokolowskibought Ṁ50 of NO

@parhizj This is something that I considered as well.

If this stuff about aliens were happening 10 years ago, it would indeed have been earth-shattering. But 10 years from now, there will be genetically modified humans, superintelligent AIs, and probably aliens too. How are all of these forms of intelligence different?

To me it doesn't seem all that different to be talking to an "alien" compared to a computer. The world is going through a phase change right now, and, given that the aliens haven't declared war on the Earth in over 80 years, whether there are aliens here or not doesn't seem to impact much in the big picture.

SteveSokolowski avatar
Steve Sokolowskipredicts NO

@parhizj I predicted NO because I think that if there are aliens, we will know one way or the other before AGI is achieved, and AGI is very close. I doubt the aliens would sit back and allow an AGI aligned to human interests to consume their resources - or, the AGI would be able to infer that aliens exist. This should be at 90%.

BTE avatar
Brian T. Edwards

Nothing about this market makes sense to me. You mean the guy who thinks we are on the brink of a worldview-shattering breakthrough in AI dismisses physics shattering phenomena with actual mutlisensor evidence if it’s existence as probably lame?!?! Why is this guy so smart again?

12 replies
StevenK avatar
Stevenpredicts YES

@BTE The AI breakthrough would be worldview-shattering because of its extreme effects, whereas the aliens would be worldview-shattering because of the assumptions needed for them to appear in this way and in no other way. One is about very different things becoming true in the future; the other is about very different things having already been true.

MetallicDragon avatar
MetallicDragonpredicts YES

@BTE If something you expect to happens, happens (AI), that is not worldview-shattering, but quite the opposite.

We also don't have any "multisensor evidence". We have single-sensor evidence (i.e. blurry videos) with witness testimony.

If you'd bother to read the tweet in the description, it explains exactly why he believes what he believes regarding UAP's. If you have any convincing counterarguments to his reasoning, you should share them.

BTE avatar
Brian T. Edwards

@MetallicDragon You are definitely wrong about not having multi sensor evidence.

BTE avatar
Brian T. Edwards

@MetallicDragon So I expect there to be aliens. This this is not world shattering regardless of origin. I still don’t get the point.

MetallicDragon avatar
MetallicDragonpredicts YES

@BTE Care to share this multi-sensor evidence?

Edit: Also, the "worldview-shattering" part of this is about whether it's worldview-shattering to Eliezer, not you.

BTE avatar
Brian T. Edwards

@MetallicDragon it isn’t hard to google these things.


“When we talk about sightings, the other thing I will tell you is, it’s not just a pilot or just a satellite, or some intelligence collection,” said Ratcliffe. “Usually we have multiple sensors that are picking up these things.”

https://pdf.defence.pk/threads/unidentified-aerial-phenomenon-uap.705132/

BTE avatar
Brian T. Edwards

@MetallicDragon I find it remarkable that someone who thinks humans are capable of building digital gods doesn’t believe there could be aliens. Is he religious or something?? He seems pretty clearly to be a clever grifter to me. I would take his bet but I am almost certain he will manipulate the outcome based on the use of the made up standard of “world shattering according to him”. Like what kinda of fucking idiot thinks this is a clever point he is making???

JonasVollmer avatar
Jonas Vollmerpredicts YES

@BTE the resolution of the bet doesn't rely on Eliezer's opinion at all; the other guy came up with the resolution criteria

BTE avatar
Brian T. Edwards

@JonasVollmer Sorry I was told differently above. Still think it’s stupid and he is a grifter.

MetallicDragon avatar
MetallicDragonpredicts YES

@BTE So, WE (as in, you and I and the public in general) do not have multi-sensor data. We have witness testimony or hearsay that multi-sensor data exists, somewhere. There is a huge HUGE difference between "I have data that proves this is real" and "Here's the data that proves this is real". In particular, we cannot analyze it ourselves and see if perhaps they have misinterpreted the data.

As to your other comment: Eliezer does not believe UFO's can't be aliens. Quote: "I don't promise that [UFOs aren't aliens.] absolutely, of course. I'm no superintelligent alien myself, to know things like that". He also explains pretty clearly why he believes the things he does, you don't need to sit here wondering how he came about those beliefs.

Furthermore, the resolution criteria are pretty clearly lined out in the original post (also linked in this market's description): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/t5W87hQF5gKyTofQB/?commentId=rsKjPAPqeFwQuNibD - I apologize if my previous comment about the resolution criteria was misleading.

BTE avatar
Brian T. Edwards

@MetallicDragon I appreciate the more detailed explanation. Answer me this, presuming the UAP and their characteristics are not phantom data but actually what they appear to be, and it turns out some dude is making them in his garage, wouldn’t that be like even more world shattering since That would mean one person or very small team is more technologically capable than the entire rest of humanity combined?

MetallicDragon avatar
MetallicDragonpredicts YES

@BTE That sounds like it would count, considering this example outlined in the original post:

  • "Merely advanced "normal" human tech would NOT count (+2 gens stealth aircraft/drones, advanced holograms/spoofing, etc)

  • What WOULD count is if the story is significantly weird enough to cause ontological shock.

    • example: Secret Manhattan style project with beyond next gen physics, that we had back in the 60's"

By my own judgement that sounds "significantly weird enough to cause ontological shock", if the tech were something sci-fi like a large drone with extremely high acceleration and no externally visible propulsive mechanism. If it was just a big weird drone using off-the-shelf parts, or technically more advanced than currently known tech, but still using mundane technology (jet engines, props) then I would not count that.