This will be resolved based on my judgement of the vibes of top Rationalist voices in 4 years.
If through their Tweets and Substack posts, I get the sense that they are happy with Trump's reforms, and that what got done was extremely impactful, vastly outweighs any harms, and was more sizable than what other post WWII presidents have accomplished, then I will resolve YES. Otherwise, NO.
EDIT: This would be judged from 1960 with JFK (68 years before 2028).
1,000
3.00@makeworld The current 18% does seem high. Now I'm wondering how it will resolve if, to pick a particular corner-casey outcome, Scott Alexander in particular says it was less bad than he thought and could end up turning out positive in the long run but in the short run it's too ambiguous to say. And say other top rationalist voices are mixed, with lots of strong-seeming arguments on both sides.
Also it would be help to identify candidates for the current record holder for most positively impactful term since 1960. JFK's "let's go to the freaking moon" speech was 1962. If the bar to clear is "putting humans on the moon" then I definitely want to push Trump's probability lower.
@makeworld This is a prediction market and I'm making my bet. 18% is reasonable in my world model. The ambition for reform is greater than the terms in the last 68 years IMO.
@dreev It would not count unless several rationalist voices are strongly on board with this thesis. Scott saying the term could have been positive is helpful if others are taking a strong stance, but it's not enough on its own.
Yes, super interested in which terms people decide are most impactful. The moon landing was overrated IMO. Also JFK just gave a speech, which is not the same as seeing it through.
@JamesGrugett Yeah, I'm very 😍 that our disagreement cashes out as different predictions we can bet on.
To pick another corner case, what if Scott Alexander himself argues strongly for yes but he seems to be in a clear minority among rationalists? (I know ultimately it's based on vibes but I think these hypotheticals are helpful in making our predictions about those vibes.)
As for the moon landing, I guess JFK was assassinated about a year after that speech and Lyndon Johnson was the one in office for most of the time NASA was getting us to the moon. I'm surprised you don't see it as that impactful. And NASA is government-funded so I'm surprised you don't think it falls under the umbrella of impact of a presidential term. Hearing your opinion on more historical examples of impact from presidential terms I think would also help with betting in this market.
@dreev its 18% because there's no real incentive to bet on markets that resolve in 4 years for a tiny payout
@Balasar Fair point. On the other hand, probably this market will react if, for example, Elon Musk lasts more than 11 days. So it's not crazy to be speculating on it now.
@JamesGrugett Are you not at all worried about the deluge of MAGA loyalists that he will inevitably appoint as federal judges?
@ShadowyZephyr The role of a judge is to conservatively apply the law as written/intended. It's an exercise for the reader which judges are better at that, but I think MAGA judges' failures are probably magnified in the same way Trump's are.
@JamesGrugett 18% is like 1 in 5ish odds it's better odds than rolling a die and living in the world where it rolls 6.
@JamesGrugett Surely the question isn't 'an exercise for the reader' because it isn't about what judges are actually more true to the word of the law, but who will help more people?
From a utilitarian standpoint, I can't see how a Trump term is going to be positive. There's just so many bad things: Political polarization and division up, faith in the election system down, our foreign relations will be terrible, the administration will be a mess because of all the loyalists appointed as Cabinet members, not to mention judges we can't get rid of because they're in for life. Trust in media will dip even more when it's already at an all time low, same for science and doctors (RFK as head of HHS, lmao), along with education and pretty much any institution. The rule of law will be demolished because a criminal got in - politicians are abandoning precedents around responsibility and conflicts of interest, Trump is already grifting and selling Bibles. The ACA will be gone, if his tariff plan goes through the economy will be hurt, not to mention sending ICE into a bunch of cities. The party is in shambles, serious institutionalists are being cast out because they don't want to support Trump.
If rationalists say that the paring down of federal government and libertarian tech reforms (admittedly probably good things) outweigh everything else, then I think they are in a bubble. Arguing "but it maybe reduced xrisk chance by 0.1% by allowing tech field more leeway" is a Pascal's Mugging problem.
What are the funniest ways this could happen? Inspired by the argument that GWB is the best president of our lifetimes due to PEPFAR, I've thought of a (obviously ridiculous) possibility:
Trump cuts PEPFAR, and gets tons of negative press from this. This leads to the #Resistance all becoming effective altruists to rebel against Trump's cruel cutting of foreign aid, causing the EA movement to become permanently so large and influential that it figures out how to solve global poverty and/or end all of the worst diseases affecting the global poor.
@PlasmaBallin Basically, any situation of, "Trump does something bad, but the backlash is bigger than the original bad thing, so it has net positive results," would be a funny way to fulfill this.
@MartinRandall 17 terms! (68 / 4 = 17), or 5.88%
Trump has a trifecta, and a popular vote mandate to make major changes. He's not choosing conventional bureaucrats for his team, but outsiders who also believe in making major changes. And there's Elon Musk, who has a track record getting stuff done. Having done one term already, Trump knows how the system works and can work it.
If you're a libertarian like me, or, as I suspect, top rationalists are, then massive deregulation and shrinking of government would qualify for being the best term in the last 68 years.
@JamesGrugett I think Trump is net negative even from a purely economic libertarian perspective. The Republican Party used to be economic libertarians, but now he's made them anti-free trade, anti-immigration, etc., which will likely make the GOP permanently less libertarian going forward. A second term will make sure this gets cemented as the new status quo in the Republican Party. So the long-term effect is anti-libertarian even if the short-term effect seems good for libertarians.
@PlasmaBallin I'm sympathetic to this view, but I'm not sure it's true. The stock market went up a lot when Trump was elected.
Also, I think regulation is the biggest killer of wealth and productivity, and his actions here will outweigh his other sins, like protectionism. I'm also optimistic that he will change his tune on high skill immigration: /JamesGrugett/will-trump-significantly-expand-hig
@OzzieGooen I meant 68 years from the end date of this market, which would be 1960. I can update the description to be more clear.
I also agree that which presidential terms were best is a really interesting question! None really stand out to me, but I don't know that much.
@Tenoke I trust James more than enough to bet in this market but the worry is totally fair. I think we could calibrate on this by considering who the most prominent rationalists who are currently pro-Trump are?
PS: I'm curious what the negative version of this market would say -- the probability this is the most negatively impactful term in recent history.
@dreev Someone who is a good judge of what the most prominent rationalist voices think should make the negative version, would be a good comparison
@dreev Scott Alexander is at the top of rationalist cred and has posts (including recently) recommending people not to vote Trump.
Eliezer Yudkowsky's most recent statement on Trump is that he can't stand him https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1796583709136896111
I don't even know who can be considered a prominent rationalist and is very pro-Trump? Maybe Robin Hanson?
@Tenoke Did Robin Hanson support Trump? I'm searching his substack and the most recent Trump mention says he predicts cancel culture will get worse if Trump is elected.
@dreev robin hanson seems like a libertarian and trump is not very libertarian fwiw. He's pro tariffs, made a bureaucracy to tackle bureaucracy DOGE , is not on page with robin hanson's community government separation thesis of libertarianism.