Not clear on where you're confused. The article does not claim this is the state today, it says in 2028- did you misread? In any event I think this is entirely plausible, say >9%, based on trendlines and the fact that I hear about this constantly already- two of the candidates in my primary had a position on this and I'm not exactly in SF. I'm prepared to hand you as much as $1k in the 91% of worlds where this doesn't happen in exchange for 30x as much (eg. 30k) in the 9% of worlds where it does. EV for me is .91 * -1 + .09 * 30 = +1.79. You claim you can say already today that this is false; I assume that means you're >99% certain. EV for you is then .99 * 1 + .01 * -30 = +0.69 (nice). Thus there is a mutually beneficial trade at the >3x your position and <1/3x my position point, and I offer 30:1 odds. I don't care if this is a nominal one of my dollars to thirty of yours, $1k is just my limit.

I don't normally do this, but you brought up your willingness to bet so I figured I'd offer.

I didn't think it was possible you misread- you had like 5 replies calling this out, but I recall them being gray and maybe you have showdead disabled- but don't feel obliged to commit if your real probability is 97% for this.

This term:

>This bet will not be decided by a poll in which AI is specifically mentioned in the polling question.

I cannot honor. In the >9% of worlds where you are wrong, any poll that excludes AI is necessarily heavily biased against me. Better to pick a particular poll.