Metaculus markets are biased towards the future because a lot of them have arbitrarily long end dates, and people who don't expect the condition to ever happen are counted with a high end date like 2500 or even 9999 in the average.

personally i think if someone lives to 1000, making profit on a prediction market wouldn't be someone's first priority

@8 if I live to 1,000 long term predictive ability will be more important.

Hey if you guys want to live forever, we're going to have to solve a bigger problem than aging:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

20 years old → P=0.001398

(1-P)^1000~=0.247

So I think we should divide the probability of getting perfect life extension before Nathan die, by ~2 to get the probability of Nathan surviving 1000 years (not ~4 because it isn’t independent)

(This is a bad analysis in both directions, it would at least require some model of the different possibilities, but I think it is biased toward the YES position)

boom. 1 mana profit.

@8 i sold out and am now rich

Another one

@firstuserhere And LastUserHere!! LOL!!

This is basically just 1 - my Nathan P(doom)

No way this is priced as more likely than the LK99 superconductor market 😭

I need me some zen stock

@NathanpmYoung oh man, I feel terrible betting NO on this market

@firstuserhere

fun fact, there is a 0.2-0.3% chance that an american male between ages 28 and 38 will die within one year. also, given a pool of 100,000 american males, on average 0 of them will reach age 111. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html#fn1

why are people pumping this?

@Sinclair I'm pumping this because I'm taking AGI and its effects on life extension seriously. I think it's pretty likely that Nathan lives until (a few years) AGI, and that AGI goes well. These are sufficient conditions to live to 1000. I might post a LessWrong post soon explaining my model.

@Nikola Pretty likely is what, 51%? Trying to reverse your model from bets in

/JamesDillard/will-ai-wipe-out-humanity-before-th and the like.

@MartinRandall Around 35% that Nathan lives until AGI and AGI goes well.

@Nikola Sufficient how? Can you explain to a neophyte like me how AGI guarantees orders of magnitude of life extension? Will it reverse entropy?

@NicoDelon Living for 1,000 years doesn't require decreasing entropy globally, and decreasing entropy locally is not hard.

@MartinRandall No but that’s my question (locally). I want someone to explain how it’s not hard.

@NicoDelon A fridge decrease it. Eating something and going to the WC decrease it.
I am unsure if it was your question.

@dionisos Yes I’m aware of the concept of energy exchange. Does anyone have something accessible on how the rise of AGI would reverse entropy for aging or slow it down enough that we could live orders of magnitude longer? @Nikola stated it as if it’s obvious; it’s anything but.

@NicoDelon Ok, yes my answer was missing the point (but I was unsure of what you mean, so I answered in case it was useful).
I think the hard part is to repair cells and ADN, not to reduce entropy (doing it will reduce entropy, but it will reduce it in a very particular way)

I think the answer come down to something like that :
- An AGI quickly become a super intelligence.
- Stopping aging is doable at all by human, with enough research and ingeniousness (with nano bots, or some processes with ADN/ARN/viruses, or whatever else).
- Given it is doable at all by humans, the super intelligence will be able to do it quite quickly.

@dionisos Hum. We're both NO so I'm not expecting you to try to convince me, but these are extremely sketchy pathways — not your fault! Nikola made the strong claim that AGI will be sufficient if Nathan lives until then. Assuming he does, I still don't understand how that's sufficient.

I don’t think we will get an AGI in this time frame.
And if we get an AGI, I think it is more probable that it kills us, than it tries to stop aging.
And even if we stop aging, there is still some chance Nathan die before living 1000 years.
So I am a big NO on this market.
But I still think that it is quite probable an AGI who try to stop aging, would manage to do it in 10 years (but I don’t think it is obvious).

I think the crucial assumption/prediction here is that AGI (and subsequent AI developments) will speed up scientific progress manyfold – more like 100x than 3x – the rest is just commentary.

There is, though, something of a clash of cultures here, I'd say. One is exemplified by Benjamin Franklin, who in 1780 – without having seen all the manifold medical advancements to come in the next 200 years, without having seen science understand and manipulate the essential building blocks of life and heredity, without having seen humans completely obliterate and put under its control one of the greatest killers – that had taken the life of one of his sons – ever seen, without having seen at last golems made out of floating point numbers that outperform medical students – without having seen any of that, still predicted that the next 1000 years of scientific progress might see the eradication of all disease and ageing. The other culture is exemplified by, having seen all that, playing the tired and irrelevant entropy card.

Not my place to say which is right, for only time can, and I doubt my words would shake mountains in any case! But luckily we are here, and we can speak with our Mana too.