I think the most virtuous solution to your hypothetical is to say "I don't know anything about existential risk, but I'd bet at 75% confidence that a mathematician will prove that 2+2≠5" (or something along those lines).
Your comment is contingent on several binary possibilities about my intentions. I appreciate your attempt to address all leaves of the decision tree. Here I will help limit the work you have to do by pinning things down.
To clarify,
My post serves one purpose: to register a public prediction. I am betting reputation. But it makes no sense to bet reputation on something everyone agrees on. It only makes sense to bet on things people disagree on. I'm hoping people will make counter-predictions because that can help verify, in the future, that the claims I made were disputed at the time.
These responses give me the very strong impression -- and I would bet fairly heavily that I am not alone in this -- that lsusr considers those comments [comments without specific predictions] inappropriate, and is trying to convey something along the lines of "put up or shut up; if you disagree with me then you should be able to make a concrete prediction that differs from mine; otherwise, no one should care about your arguments".
Not exactly. The comments are prefectly appropriate. I don't plan on engaging them in either direction because the purpose of this post isn't (for me) to debate. It's to register a public prediction.
So why ask if people want to make a counter-prediction? Because arguing against me without making a concrete prediction after I just made a public prediction puts comments in a frustratingly ambiguous state where it's not obvious whether they constitute a counter-prediction. I want to avoid ambiguity in future evaluation of these threads.
To put it another way, someone could claim "I knew lsusr was wrong--see this comment I made" if I turn out to be wrong. That same person could also claim "I don't lose reputation because I didn't make an explicit counter-prediction". I want to avoid this potential for strategic ambiguity.
First, maybe lsusr considers that (especially given the last paragraph in the OP) any discussion of the arguments at all is inappropriate. In that case, I think either (1) the arguments should simply not be in the OP at all or else (2) there should be an explicit statement along the lines of "I am not willing to discuss my reasoning and will ignore comments attempting to do so".
They're not arguments intended to convince anyone else of anything. They're personal reasons for my conclusion. I think it's better to have them than not to have them, because my post is part of a collaborative effort to find the truth, and more transparency is better toward achieving this end.
As for an explicit statement, here's something I could try the next time I make a similar post:
This post primarily serves as a public prediction. Please begin all comments with either a counter-prediction or [no prediction]. You are welcome to debate the logic of my reasoning, but do not expect me to engage with you. Right now I am putting skin in the game, not grandstanding.
Second, maybe lsusr is happy to discuss the arguments, but only with people who demonstrate their seriousness by making a concrete prediction that differs from lsusr's.
Nope, but I appreciate you considering the possibility. I am happy to consider the arguments elsewhere, but the arguments presented here are too thin to defend. For each tiny point I'd have to write a whole post, and if/when I do that I'd rather make an actual top-level post.
Third, maybe the impression I have is wrong, and lsusr doesn't in fact disapprove of, or dislike, comments addressing the arguments without a concrete disagreement with the conclusions.
I "[don't] in fact disapprove of, or dislike, comments addressing the arguments without a concrete disagreement with the conclusions." I enjoy them, actually. I just want to clarify whether the comments are counter-predictions or not.
I appreciate the feedback. I will consider it in the future to as not to give a misleading impression.
Maybe? It depends a lot on how I interpret your question. I'm trying to keep these posts contained and so I'd rather not answer that question in this thread.
Would you like to register a counter prediction?
Would you like to publicly register a counterprediction?
That's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Philosophical zombie takeover seems like a real possibility to me.
Thanks. These seem like good definitions. They actually set the bar high for your prediction, which is respectable. I appreciate you taking this seriously.
If you'll permit just a little bit more pedantic nitpicking, do you mind if I request a precise definition of nanotech? I assume you mean self-replicating nanobots (grey goo) because, technically, we already have nanotech. However, putting the bar at grey goo (potential, of course—the system doesn't have to actually make it for real) might be setting it above what you intended.
Do you mean the free energy principle?