If Eliezer Yudkowsky loses his bet about UFOs not having a worldview-shattering origin, what is the reason why?
28
420
1.4k
2100
25%
Ultraterrestrials (home-grown, advanced non-human civs, hidden from us)
25%
Other
18%
EY's mind changes such that a boring explanation is worldview-shattering
10%
Aliens
7%
UFOs are a product of a massive conspiracy unrelated to non-human entities
4%
UFOs are part of/directed by a superintelligence
1.5%
UFOs are time travelers
1.5%
UFOs are magic
1.4%
UFOs are angels
1.3%
AI is harder than practical interstellar travel
1.3%
Holographic Principle
1.3%
UFOs are psychic manifestations

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.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:
boughtṀ400EY's mind changes su... YES

@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.

More related questions