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.

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.

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.

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.)