OK, I've got an update for this market. I have recently been introduced to Jamie Joyce (@JustJamieJoyce, @JamieJoyce) and her work with Society Library. I have found myself to be more aligned with her and her interests than I find myself aligned with @Aella and for that reason am shifting my aims to pursue a partnership with her instead. I will still retain the wagers I have placed on marrying Aella so far, on the off chance that she's also attracted to Jamie and wants to join a polycule situation, but ultimately, my life goals are much more in line with Jamie. Aella does seem like she might be more into wild parties, which I like, but that could just be from a lack of data. Ultimately, I'd like to rigorously survey both of these women to find out which one is technically more charitable. I won't be betting this market up any longer, as I feel my funds are better used getting Jamie's attention instead. Thanks for all the support.

how is this market 24%

Deleted (realized comment was wrong)

@EladEvenShani the better functioning market is at https://manifold.markets/Gurkenglas/how-will-krantzs-aella-market-resol-5y0y6lttOh?r=SmFzb25R

Since this one is designed to resolve N/A.

How will "control the world with intellectual force" be measured? How can we ensure it's in fact controlled and that it's not through other means like military force?

@AlexanderTheGreater I will provide an analytic proof. You guys will get like a billion dollars or something for finding the error.

Have you tried booking time with her? Apparently you can just book time to talk: https://knowingless.com/lets-do-a-call/

Obviously not a "proper date" but at least a way to have an intro

My future wife is currently offering a $100k bounty to the individual that introduces her to me. To be clear, if I had $100k, I would use it to pay a group of intelligence analysts to rigorously interrogate @Aella in a (consensual) way that interpretably maps her internal epistemology for decentralized alignment and verification.

It's pretty hard to find chicks that are into getting philosophically interrogated by a room full of open source intelligence analysts.

If she is looking for deep probing questions that challenge her worldview, I've got em.

Someone please help her find me so we can take over the world.

If she finds me as a result of this prediction, I will recommend that she distribute the $100k proportionally across the individuals that supported my strategic correspondence by dumping it all as mana towards a "no" resolution for this prediction.

Thanks

@Krantz Given the specific metrics for this prediction, if @Aella looks at this as an analytic rationalist sapiosexual sex worker, if she is willing to give away $100k to a mechanism that finds her a husband, she should be willing to buy this down to a percentage equal to (her 24hr rate for sapiosexual work)/$100k.

So, $10k / day = 10%

$20k / day = 20%...

I am either a viable potential husband or a potential client that is just trying to pay for a service.

If only someone put it on her radar.

@Krantz heads up that sp**k is a racial slur in some contexts

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/spook_n?tl=true

Something something 2 nickels @crowlsyong

@TheAllMemeingEye It would be entertaining if somebody automated this bit with a bot account.

Btw @Krantz what is your unironic credence for this? It seems somewhat likely you might be betting non epistemically so far

@TheAllMemeingEye If my epistemology seems unsound to you, maybe you should map it in the form of a proper argument in the demonstration mechanism I'm trying to pay you to use.

@TheAllMemeingEye https://manifold.markets/Krantz/guessing-game-what-propositions-doe

@Krantz personally, my current credences are:

• P(Aella goes on a "proper date" with Krantz, i.e. "makes any half-way decent attempt to actually discuss the in-depth issue in private") = ~10%

• P(Aella will broadly agree with Krantz's AI alignment strategy, given the discussion) = ~10%

• P(Aella will marry Krantz, given the discussion) = ~0.1%

• P(Aella will have offspring with Krantz, given the discussion) = ~0.1%

• P(Aella will pivot her career to helping Krantz take control of the world, given the discussion) = ~1%

• P(all of the above) = ~0.01%

What would you say is the correct value for each?

@TheAllMemeingEye You forgot P(Successfully controlling the world with intellectual force)

@IsaacLinn arguably the title, start of description, and middle of description give 3 very different criteria.

Title

and control the world with intellectual force.

Start of description

and pivot her career to helping me demonstrably take control of the world using intellectual force.

Middle of description

Aella designates her formal employer as "krantz".

Your proposal applies to the first but not the other 2.

@TheAllMemeingEye These are great inquiries. I'm glad that you are trying to engage analytically to pin down my particular confidences on these particular propositions. That's something I wish more people would do.

I have to ask though, since the entire purpose of this prediction (along with nearly all of my predictions) is to teach this community how to use a particular mechanism to decentrally survey this specific form of information, why do you not simply use that mechanism to query my confidence as opposed to writing it out in the comments?

If you went to the krantz demonstration mechanism and added the following propositions:

1. Aella will go on a proper date with Krantz.

2. Aella will broadly agree with Krantz's alignment strategy.

3. Aella will marry Krantz.

4. Aella and Krantz will produce offspring.

5. Aella will use the Krantz mechanism to produce the majority of her income.

6. If 1, then 2.

7. If 1, then 3.

8. If 1, then 4.

9. If 1, then 5.

10. If 1, then (2, 3, 4 and 5).

If you did this, you would demonstrate that you understand the form of communication I am trying to teach the world how to use. You would also be able to view and operate on everyone's confidence for each proposition.

In general, it feels like a waste of time responding to everyone's cynical remarks in the comments section. If someone genuinely wanted to intellectually force me to update my priors, the obvious way to charitably do so would be through writing a valid argument within the krantz mechanism that compells me to confront any possible contradictions publicly.

Nobody seems capable of doing that.

@Krantz Here's a bounty for anyone capable of intellectually forcing me to update my priors (about any topic you'd like) using the mechanism I keep advocating for.

https://manifold.markets/Krantz/will-anyone-write-an-argument-that

@Krantz

since the entire purpose of this prediction (along with nearly all of my predictions) is to teach this community how to use a particular mechanism to decentrally survey this specific form of information, why do you not simply use that mechanism to query my confidence as opposed to writing it out in the comments?

[...]

If someone genuinely wanted to intellectually force me to update my priors, the obvious way to charitably do so would be through writing a valid argument within the krantz mechanism that compells me to confront any possible contradictions publicly.

If you want more people to understand and try to use your mechanism, then my recommendation is the same as I commented in your other market:

Could you write a 1-3 paragraph layman language explanation of the Krantz mechanism?

i.e. don't use any phrases you wouldn't expect an average English speaking person to already understand, certainly don't use any phrases you've invented or redefined, do a Toki-Pona-ing / Yudkowskian-tabooing ( https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WBdvyyHLdxZSAMmoz/taboo-your-words ) if need be. Existing explanations you've shared seem to be either extremely long or include a bunch of opaque invented/redefined language e.g. krantz-x, constitution, ledger, collective intelligence etc.

For this prediction, "proper date" means "spend at least 24 hours charitably questioning each other's philosophy inside a SCIF (secured compartmentalized information facility)".

A couple questions:

• Why call this a "proper date"? This seems to be highly at odds with the intuitive definition

• Is this 24h continuous, with no breaks, not even for eating or sleeping? If there are breaks, what's the maximum length and frequency?

• What even is a secured compartmentalized information facility? Does it mean a university building with security guards?

@TheAllMemeingEye for the last one, I think he means this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_information_facility

@LiamZ thanks for the explanation 👍

It raises the follow-up question of whether krantz would count informal improvised attempts at making one (e.g. a room with civilian soundproofing and checked for bugs) or would he only count one officially designated as such by a government or military?

@TheAllMemeingEye I am going to be more than happy to resolve this if any half-way decent attempt is made by @Aella to actually discuss an in depth issue in private.

@Krantz Or NO, if you don't satisfy the other three conditions. Right?

@LiamZ Im glad we now know that no one has ever gone on a serious date ever

Free loan market though

@Gurkenglas on his Elizier market he actually got the guy to engage but he still refuses to resolve it. It would likely be similar here, if she rejects him it's not going to mean “NO” but rather that it “wasn't a proper date.”

@LiamZ good point

@Krantz can you confirm that you are indeed willing to resolve no in such cases and won't shift the goal posts?

@TheAllMemeingEye ignoring this is not surprising but pretty funny.