A Dyson sphere harnessing 1% of the Sun's resources would be more massive than Earth itself. Superhuman intelligence or not, that's just not physically possible to build in the next 75 years.

Only reason these ludicrous markets don't go to 1% is that the time horizon is so long that nobody will get to see their payout, and then the question itself becomes irrelevant as people speculate on upward/downward motion.

@SentientTree I disagree. It is not that difficult to build a dyson sphere.

@SentientTree Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/intergalactic-spreading.pdf calculate a 31 year building time for a very thin Dyson sphere. I don't know if that's correct and I don't know how much it's possible to improve on that, but some calculation is needed.

@StevenK Interesting read, and I should clarify that by "physically impossible," I am saying implicitly "given the state of human technology in 2025 and conceivable advancements through 2100." A much more advanced alien civilization could conceivably build a Dyson sphere on that timeline.

As a philosophy paper, it doesn't delve into the nitty-gritty of how the replicator works (only that it is not prohibited from existing by the laws of physics). This relies on machines that are able to take in solar energy, transport that back to mercury with at most 2/3 energy lost, and use that energy to further disassemble mercury and make more copies of themselves.

If you think that's 21st century technology, I have bridge to sell you.

@SentientTree https://www.forethought.org/research/the-industrial-explosion

I think the only way we get this is with AI singularity taking over. I'd put that scenario somewhere at 30%-79% but in that scenario we are dead and I don't care anymore about winning this market

@AlexanderTheGreater naah you'll still be alive

You think superhuman AI wouldn't kill us? Why?

@AlexanderTheGreater aesthetics

@AlexanderTheGreater Why do you think it would? If it's programmed correctly then there'd be no reason for it to

@BastiaanVorster I haven't heard about any progress to solve the alignment problem at all while I constantly hear and experience progress towards smarter and smarter AI and keep reading stories about AIs deceiving their builders.

@AlexanderTheGreater "solving the alignment problem" is a false idol. The original intent of this narrative was nothing to do with facilitating the discovery of methods to make AI "safer". The objective was to control other people.

@AlexanderTheGreater same thing with the stories you are reading about "AIs deceiving their builders". The authors know that these experiments are flawed and have zero epistemic or scientific value. The goal is to make you afraid and control you

@NebulaByte this seems to handwave away all arguments people like Yud make by simply assigning them bad motivation. Is there a longer write-up on this theory?

@AlexanderTheGreater I agree the alignment problem is very hard to solve, but aligning an AI enough to have it not kill us is a much easier goal. The AI models that you see getting smarter are unlikely to be given enough control to cause real damage - I can't see a LLM killing us all

@AlexanderTheGreater you are referring to the leader of an apocalypse cult to support your argument

"Am I in a cult?" checklist:

Does the group insist that a near‑term global catastrophe is virtually certain unless its unique plan is adopted?

Are you told that only insiders possess the technical insight or moral clarity needed to avert disaster?

Is one living thinker portrayed as the indispensable genius whose writings and thought‑experiments set the movement’s entire direction?

Does the group rely on specialized vocabulary or esoteric mathematical arguments that outsiders supposedly can’t grasp, discouraging lay critique?

Are highly abstract hypothetical scenarios treated as hard evidence that overrides real‑world data?

Have you postponed education, career plans, relationships, or health because nothing else matters until the crisis is solved?

Do peers urge you to avoid certain books, podcasts, or scholars because they’ll just slow you down or contaminate your reasoning?

Do members routinely imply that critics are either ignorant, irrational, or secretly malicious?

Are donations framed not merely as helpful but as a moral obligation given the looming apocalypse?

When predicted tipping points pass uneventfully, does the movement revise timelines yet become even more certain?

Do you frequently experience guilt, dread, or cosmic responsibility on behalf of all future generations at the group’s prompting?

Is claiming to be the only truly rational community used to dismiss mainstream scientists, philosophers, or journalists?

Is internal reputation and prestige treated as more reliable indicators of expertise than external degrees or peer review?

Are small deceptions or public scare tactics defended because they supposedly serve the greater good?

Have core members clustered geographically or online, minimizing everyday contact with people outside the belief system?

No way we are getting a dyson sphere until another 500 years

@grofigaszadosijv feel free to put 500 mana on NO 😄

Would a Dyson Swarm count? How about a large amount of big concentrating mirrors focused on a few focal points?

@Shump Dyson Swarm counts. Concentrating mirrors count provided there are at least 50 of them and they harness at least 1% of the Sun's power output.