[inimino]

It's a global pandemic. We all have skin in the game whether we want to or not. Unless you're suggesting that before writing a blog post, he should do some amateur virology and variolate himself, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you're trying to say Robin Hanson would see this implemented and then not be among the first volunteers, I think you don't know Robin Hanson.

[cameldrv]

I'm guessing he isn't doing it himself because he's 61 years old. His odds of dying are maybe 10-100x higher than the perfectly healthy twentysomethings that he's proposing for an initial trial.

[rglullis]

Well, he is the one that is arguing that there is some linearity between cost-benefit of such a research. So following his own reasoning, as long as he gets 10x-100x bigger payment compared to a twentysomething, all is good and clean.

There are moral considerations to be done before proposing something ridiculous like what he is doing, and yet he is trying to reduce all ethical considerations into a "simple" matter of economics. Life can not be reduced to spherical cows and trolley problems.

[rglullis]

I mean "Skin in the Game" in the Talebian sense, so yes, I am saying that he may write anything he wants, but I will only give any credit to his ideas if he actually follows through himself, or at the very very least if he accepts responsibility for any damage that he's done and is penalized accordingly.

Losing money in a prediction market does not count as a proportional penalty for the damage that he might be causing to others.

[inimino]

I know very well what you meant, and yet I still struggle to see what you're actually suggesting that he should have done, besides what he did, which was write a blog post about an interesting idea.

Can you actually make a concrete suggestion or are you just blathering because you don't like the guy? The only concrete thing I can see in your comment is that you won't "give any credit to his ideas" unless he, presumably, tries it himself first (how?).

And what exactly is this terrible damage that he might be causing to others by raising awareness of this idea? Are we afraid of infection from blog posts now?

[rglullis]

> he, presumably, tries it himself first (how?).

He would be showing a modicum of Skin in the Game if he actually went to infect himself and those close to him with the virus before encouraging others to normalize such a risky experiment.

> Are we afraid of infection from blog posts now?

He is not just "raising awareness" of the idea of variolation. His writing was already trying to argue that government could try a program where volunteers would get paid to be infected.

When asked "if you think this is a good idea, why don't you do it yourself?" he responded with something along the lines of "there is no counterparty to bet with me on it, so what is the point?" Isn't that the answer of someone completely oblivious to the idea of SITG?

[inimino]

> if he actually went to infect himself

Again: How?

He's suggesting a program of trained medical professionals, isolation, observation, and you think he just ought to go off and infect himself in uncontrolled conditions without any medical training or control group? One of the two of you hasn't thought this through, and I'm pretty sure it's you.

[rglullis]

How to infect himself? A short walk in a busy hospital would take care of that quickly... but that really doesn't matter for the argument.

> He's suggesting a program of trained medical professionals, isolation, observation (...) he just ought to go off and infect himself

Yes, that is the point! He is suggesting something that medical experts already consider dangerous and unethical, otherwise it would already be done. He wants medical experts give some veneer of science to something completely immoral just by seeking higher financial compensation to those that might be affected.

So what he is "proposing" involving everyone else taking a lot more risk, without any real consequence for him. This is no display of SITG, quite the opposite. He just sees it as a game of "Heads some might lose their life, but tails we might win a little, so let's find the price point where this is even".

By asking if he is willing to infect himself to do it, it is not a matter of doing it for the science or the economics of betting. It is just a pure ethical filter: "So far your words only risk the lives of others, but if you really think this is the best course of action then you need to demonstrate you are willing to put your ass on the line. Can you?"

[inimino]

> A short walk in a busy hospital

You demonstrate utter failure to understand the idea. A controlled, known, small viral load is the idea. Controlled: not from a random walk through a hospital, but administered under controlled conditions. Known: a measured quantity, not an unknown quantity from a random walk through a hospital, of a known viral strain. Small: maybe 1/50th the kind of load you would get if you were exposed in a busy hospital and someone sneezed on you.

You so spectacularly missed all these points that it's clearly not worth continuing this conversation further.