1,000People are also trading
The responses are symmetric so far. Really shows how challenging it is to be directionally correct on this call. Good luck everyone!
Care to add a description/recap for those who perhaps have not been in the conversation?
This poll, to some, might seem like over hearing someone walking by talking on their bluetooth asking a question out of the blue. Maybe the question is not directed at the casual passerby, but I would like to know more.
@ShitakiIntaki A lot of people who follow AI developments have strong beliefs that near-future developments in AI will have massive impacts on the world, either for better or for worse. On the "better" side, many people think that well-aligned AGI could massively increase economic prosperity and quality of life, which would likely reduce the need to save up a large amount of money for retirement (in a good post-scarcity world, people in retirement would likely be adequately provided for by socialized programs). On the "worse" side, many people think that we are unlikely to get well-aligned AGI before developments in AI lead to catastrophic outcomes, e.g. superhuman synthetic bioterrorism or cybersecurity risks, in which case the value of having saved up for retirement (provided you can't afford an air-tight bunker, at least) would likely be significantly lower.
@ShitakiIntaki AGI, if realized, will affect the global economy in weird and unexpected ways.
Some people are depleting their savings because they think they won't be needed in a post-scarcity world or that we'll all be dead.
Others are expecting increased inequaly due a concentration of power in the hands of AI providers (and are trying to secure some wealth beforehand).
Others don't really care.
@jgyou That pretty much sums it up. I think it's a better bet to go the "increased inequality" route in most cases