Should smart, ethical people go into AI rather than climate tech? (subsidized)
➕
Plus
24
Ṁ1499
2039
82%
chance

This question resolves true if, looking back in 15 years, it's obviously the case that:

"In 2023, the marginal smart, ethical person should have gone into AI rather than climate"

This question resolves false if it's obviously the case that:

"In 2023, the marginal smart, ethical person should have gone into climate rather than AI"

Resolves n/a otherwise.

I'll assume that in either field the person would work on the top 5% of most effective interventions, as judged post-hoc, and that we're only evaluating impact (not salary, personal fit, other idiosyncratic factors).

How could this be obvious? E.g. if most climate innovations are the products of AI systems and human labor on climate in the 2020s turned out obsolete; if an enormous avoidable-in-retrospect catastrophe or near miss happened in either of these fields.

If in doubt I'll resolve n/a.

Get
Ṁ1,000
and
S3.00
Sort by:

im sure there's no sampling bias whatsoever among the types of people likely to be on a rationalist-adjacent prediction market

"Go into" in which sense? "Work on", or "work on stopping"?

@josh Whichever feels appropriate to you, I meant "engage with"

"Should" in what sense? AI likely pays better, but IMO climate tech is higher-impact on object level.

@Lorxus Just based on impact

© Manifold Markets, Inc.Terms + Mana-only TermsPrivacyRules