This market is intended to aggregate the most likely reasons why UFO's have word-view shattering origins (for Eliezer Yudkowsky), and reward those who thought of them first. In most worlds, I expect this market to resolve "N/A", but who doesn't like the idea of finding the best conspiracy theory.
I will resolve it to the answer that closest/most specificly details why, so long as it was posted prior to the "worldview shattering event" becoming public knowledge. If my resolution appears to controversial, I am quite happy to let a group of trustworthy-ish users/admins re-resolve it.
This question resolves N/A if Eliezer wins this bet:
Kudos to @Joshua's market for bringing this bet to my attention.
Feel free to ask questions in the comments - if they are insightful or they help me clean up this market, I'll pay cold, hard Ṁ.
1,000People are also trading
@LiamZ incredibly silly option driven by irrational betting in a market that will almost certainly NA.
@horse would hidden advanced human civilisations count for this option e.g. something Atlantis-like?
@horse This seems so unlikely, if anything I’d expect it to be the other way, such that a 2021-world-view-shattering explanation is no longer considered worldview-shattering
This is exactly how the UFO story is playing out, and how it will continue to play out.
Scientific progress and paradigm shifs aren't instantaneous. There's been three attempts to get the UAPDA passed now, and every time more and more people take it seriously - to the point where Emmett Shear now even says that his most intelligent friends think non-human intelligence is the most likely explanation.
Just like AI, by the time we have LLMs taking orders regularly at restaurants, we already know that's been possible for a year but the masses will be shocked. Similarly, people who have been following UFOs know that the evidence has been there for years, and to us it will seem unremarkable once people start to believe it.
@horse this seems a bit high imho. I generally won't bet on my own markets (especially this one), but I'd bet this down significantly if someone else was running it.
@RobertCousineau Why do you think it's too high? I think it's reasonable for something completely non-supernatural (for lack of a better word) to be much more likely than more supernatural things.
Anyone who has read about Grusch's claims or some of the research on this topic would say that if non-human intelligence exists, it is likely to explain most of the things in this list as part of the intelligence's doing.
If, as some believe, UFOs have been present throughout history and their sightings have influenced major religions, then they are aliens, demons, God, magic, and psychic manifestations all in one. I would argue that if his worldview is shattered, the most likely resolution is "almost all of the above," so this market is flawed.
@SteveSokolowski My suggestions are meant to be interpreted literally; from my perspective, extraterrestrial aliens historically visiting Earth and serving as the inspiration for Biblical angels or being interpreted as angels should resolve "Aliens". If UFOs are literally divine beings from Heaven on a mission from God, then it should resolve "Angels" (IMO). Likewise for similar supernatural options.
@horse Hmmm, OK - but I honestly don't see a difference between "angels" and "aliens." That's why Chuck Schumer wrote the term "NHI" into the bill.
AI researchers tend to define intelligence as being able to achieve goals. Maybe it's the goals that define what the superintelligence is called? If this stuff is true, I don't see how there is any remaining difference between religion and computer science.
@SteveSokolowski The only traits these hypothetical aliens and angels necessarily share is "be responsible for UFO sightings in some way". That's a lot of room for differences!
@horse I'm just saying that in computer science, which is how the universe works, there's no theoretical difference between God, an angel, and an alien. Those are terms we would use to describe the intelligence's behavior.
Fortunately for us, though, it seems likely that this market will resolve N/A. The 10% I place on Yudkowsky being wrong is too high for comfort; I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer if God doesn't exist and we are free to do with the multiverse as we choose.