[why_only_15]

If you believe this article, I would be happy to bet up to $10,000 that OpenAI will not collapse in the next 24 months. We could operationalize this by saying that OpenAI will employ at least as many people (or pay at least as much in salaries) in 24 months as it does now. The author of the article refused to take this bet when it was offered to him several times https://x.com/JeffLadish/status/1817999232105627722.

[asp_hornet]

so we should only listen to the hypotheses of gamblers? The author shouldnt even feel the need to acknowledge the bet. So petty

[why_only_15]

If you are making predictions about the world, you should be willing to put money on those predictions so that you are grounded to making predictions that you actually believe in as opposed to just blathering.

[sifar]

Predictions can go wrong for any number of reasons beyond one's thesis. One can be right about what but wrong about when. To bet money on that just to satisfy ones (and others) ego is foolish. To recognize that is wisdom.

[m463]

I think the common way to do this is to put 10k into openai stock, or short it.

(Instead of engaging with some some random internet commenteer.)

[swifthesitation]

It would have to be a publicly traded company for this to be an option...

[edzitron]

See, this is just a weak argument. This was thousands of words of hypotheses backed up with data and citation. Dismissing it as "blathering" and then demanding I make a bet based on your terms isn't an argument, nor is it a particularly compelling idea - you haven't engaged with my work, nor my arguments, nor my actual ideas.

You are, on some level, suggesting that money is a more compelling argument than an actual argument, because that is your only response.

[kjrfghslkdjfl]

This is too reductionist. There's a lot of reasons why someone could turn down that bet, other than "he's just blathering". Maybe he's very confidently down on OpenAI but 10k is a lot of money for him, and is being offered a bet by someone who's a noise generator but who's very well off, for whom 10k means nothing. If you think these people don't exist, you should visit WSB.

I evaluate arguments on their own merit, not based on extraneous data like appeal to authority or what bets the author makes.

[Der_Einzige]

It's exactly the opposite! Prediction/betting markets are possibly the most/only reliable way to forecast things with otherwise limited information. Prediction Markets are extremely accurate since being wrong makes people poor and they use every trick in the book to not be poor.

[danjl]

Companies die slowly. It will definitely take longer than two years before the company is gone, but you will know it's on its way out long before it happens.

[tivert]

> The author of the article refused to take this bet when it was offered to him several times https://x.com/JeffLadish/status/1817999232105627722.

So what? No one has participate in the "rationalist" subculture's weird practices. It means nothing to refuse to take a bet like that, let alone that the claims made in the article are suspect (which you seem to be implying).

[I can't actually read anything beyond the tweet you linked because twitter is stupid].

[comp_throw7]

> No one has participate in the "rationalist" subculture's weird practices.

True!

> It means nothing to refuse to take a bet like that, let alone that the claims made in the article are suspect (which you seem to be implying).

False! If the author was sufficiently confident in their claims, they'd be happy to take the free money (or, if they're sufficiently liquidity-constrained, propose a smaller bet at similar terms). You can certainly argue that the practice of betting on one's beliefs is "weird" but that objection is circular. If you claim to see free money on the ground, and other people notice that you aren't picking it up, they would be correct to wonder why.

[seanhunter]

It's not free money on the ground, it's a bet on the outcome of some event.

You're presupposing that the only possible rational reason they might have to not bet might be that they are not confident but that's obviously not the case.

Just to pick one possible rational reason, maybe they or a loved one have been touched by the negative consequences of gambling so they don't believe in betting?

[Dylan16807]

> It's not free money on the ground, it's a bet on the outcome of some event.

If you have convincing enough evidence for it, a bet is more likely than something that looks like money on the ground. Imagine betting the sun will rise tomorrow.

> You're presupposing that the only possible rational reason they might have to not bet might be that they are not confident but that's obviously not the case.

They didn't say it's the only reason, just that refusing to bet weakens their claim of confidence. Plausible but unconfirmed reasons are why it's only a weakening rather than disproof, but it's still a weakening.

[seanhunter]

It may weaken their claim for you. To me, refusing to take an ego bet with some random on the internet suggests they're not 9 years old.

And no I wouldn't bet that the sun will rise tomorrow. For a number of reasons. Firstly I don't care that much about money (shocking but true), so there is little to no upside if I was to win the bet other than the general benefit I would derive from the sun rising and I get that whether I bet or not.

Secondly I think betting about facts is an incredibly foolish thing to do in general. If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play.

Finally betting with some random that I have no reason to think would make good on their side of the bet if I was to win. idk man that just seems like a really dumb idea. I don't understand why people think it makes them smart to think otherwise.

[Dylan16807]

It's only an ego bet if you don't care about money. Most people would significantly enjoy an extra hundred or thousand dollars. It's a big upside.

> If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play.

I think it's pretty clear in this case that's it's a genuine disagreement about the fate of the company.

> Finally betting with some random that I have no reason to think would make good on their side of the bet if I was to win. idk man that just seems like a really dumb idea. I don't understand why people think it makes them smart to think otherwise.

There are plenty of trustworthy arbiters/platforms available. For most people spending a couple hours looking into it is easily worth the money... if they're right.

[comp_throw7]

> Secondly I think betting about facts is an incredibly foolish thing to do in general. If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play.

Well, that sure sounds like a claim about how confident one should be about their understanding of reality. One most people disagree with, incidentally - do you own any equities?

Counterparty risk is a valid reason to avoid certain bets (or bet structures), but a totally separate objection from "betting is a weird thing that only weirdos do".

[tivert]

You need to come up for air. You seem to be stuck so deep in that weird subculture's "logic" that you're having trouble imagining someone who isn't.

I don't gamble, and even if I did I certainly wouldn't take a bet for a large sum of money with some internet rando playing a rhetorical game.

[why_only_15]

If you are making a prediction about the world, why not gamble on it? It shows to others that you have an actual stake as opposed to blathering.

[tivert]

Come up for air. I'm not part of that subculture and I feel no need indulge it or to prove myself to members of it by participating in its rituals.

[ifyoubuildit]

As someone who doesn't know what subculture you're talking about, parent's argument sounds reasonable to me. There's even an old saying that everyone has probably heard - "Why don't you put your money where your mouth is." Is that some kind of fringe thing now?

[fragmede]

the market can stay irrational liner than you can stay solvent though, and $10k is a lot of money to bet for those of us who didn't get crypto rich. refusing to take part in your weird games doesn't say what you think it does.

[consteval]

> If the author was sufficiently confident in their claims

What? No.

I'm very confident in my driving skills. I'm a great defensive driver. But I won't bet on me not getting in a wreck this next year.

Because the real world is complicated and truly anything can happen. That doesn't mean you're right, that means you got lucky.

For example the Simpson's creators aren't clairvoyant geniuses, they just happened to get a lot of stuff right.

[comp_throw7]

> But I won't bet on me not getting in a wreck this next year.

You already have, by deciding on a specific level of coverage for your auto insurance policy.

(That aside - really? Either you get into many more accidents than the average person, or you're not extrapolating out into the future. If given the chance to take the same bet at 1:1 odds every year, surely you'd then take it every year until you decided to stop driving for safety reasons?)

[consteval]

I commute 15 hours a week. In Texas.

I see a few accidents a day. Nobody actually wants to drive really, we just do it because we have to. If I could teleport to work or even take a train I'd do it, and I'm not alone in that.

Point is, I don't feel comfortable betting on things where there's a large amount of outside influence. And no, insurance isn't betting. It's risk pooling, not betting.

[imtringued]

Nobody cares about someone being wrong in the past, because people update their beliefs all the time.

Meanwhile a bet over a silly internet discussion can get stuck in significant transaction costs vs buying, selling or even shorting a stock for the same money.

[dmitrygr]

You are so sure you're right, what odds are you offering?

[lovethevoid]

The employee angle seems cowardly as investor pumping would keep that artificially high. Why not profitability?