I think it would be good if you could highlight what is new here, vs re-hashing one half of standard arguments (and not covering why people disagree).

I don't see how you can 'multiply by 1000+ other species' given these two examples were likely selected for being unusually large. 

Thanks for sharing, some very interesting ideas.

I'm skeptical about the biodiversity point, at least at that level of generality. It makes sense there are some species that are important for human welfare, maybe in ways that are not initially appreciated, but it seems like a big jump to go from this to biodiversity in general being important.

The improvements to flooring and noise pollution make a lot of sense to me. One interesting intervention I've heard of for the latter is improving the regulations about backup warning alarms on trucks and other vehicles.

"Coup" includes:

• ...
• Bush v. Gore would resolve YES

I realize 'Manifold questions with poor resolution criteria' is something of a repeated subject from me, but I think it's worth noting how perverse this criteria is. If traders are behaving rationally, for this contract to be trading at 30% implies 70% confidence that... the 2028 election will be more democratically legitimate than the 2000 election? As far as I can see, this market pricing is perfectly compatible with:

• 70% of being more democratically legitimate as a perfectly fine presidential election
• 30% of being equally legitimate to a perfectly fine presidential election

To the extent that you use the word 'coup' in a very expansive way that is not shared by most people, you should probably explicitly signpost this. The rest of your comment doesn't really follow as a result... why should SCOTUS deciding than you can't do cherry-picked county recounts create an incentive to rush to a strategic decisive advantage? The Absence of AGI was not an issue to the ruling back in 2000.

I'm not sure why you chose to frame your comment in such an unnecessarily aggressive way so I'm just going to ignore that and focus on the substance.

Yes, the Studio Ghibli example is representative of AI decentralizing power:

• Previously, only a small group of people had an ability (to make good art, or diagnose illnesses, or translate a document, or do contract review, or sell a car, or be a taxi driver, etc.)
• Now, due to a large tech company (e.g. Google, Uber, AirBnB, OpenAI) everyone who used to be able to still can, and also ordinary people can as well. This is a decentralization of power.
• The fact that this was not due to an ideological choice made by AI companies is irrelevant. Centralization and decentralization often occurs for non ideological reasons.
• The fact that things might change in the future is also not relevant. Yes, maybe one day Uber will raise prices to twice the level taxis used to charge, with four times the wait time and ten times the odor. But for now, they have helped decentralize power.
• The group of producers who are now subject to increased competition are unsurprisingly upset. For fairly nakedly self-interested reasons they demand regulation.
• Ideological leftists provide rhetorical ammunition to the rent-seekers, in classic baptists and bootleggers style.
• These demands for regulation affect four different levels of the power hierarchy:
  • The government (most powerful): increases power
  • Tech platform: reduces power
  • Incumbent producers: increases power
  • Ordinary people (least powerful): reduces power
• Because leftists focus on the second and third bullet points, characterizing it as a battle between small artisans and big business, they falsely claim to be pushing for power to be decentralized.
• But actually they are pushing for power to be more centralized: from tech companies towards the leviathan, and from ordinary people towards incumbent producers.

AI art seems like a case of power becoming decentralized: before this week, few people could make Studio Ghibli art. Now everyone can.

This seems like one of many Manifold markets with terrible resolution criteria. Wikipedia is not an oracle; it is a website run by Trump's political opponents, who are willing to use skullduggery to promote their political agendas. Even just looking at this page, it is a bizarre collection of events. It includes things like this:

In 2017, the eligibility of a number of Australian parliamentarians to sit in the Parliament of Australia was called into question because of their actual or possible dual citizenship. The issue arises from section 44 of the Constitution of Australia, which prohibits members of either house of the Parliament from having allegiance to a foreign power. Several MPs resigned in anticipation of being ruled ineligible, and five more were forced to resign after being ruled ineligible by the High Court of Australia, including National Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. This became an ongoing political event referred to variously as a "constitutional crisis"^[34][35] or the "citizenship crisis".

Inclusion of this sort of event suggests a very low bar for what constitutes a crisis. But then many objectively much more major events are simply totally omitted! 

I can see why the market is trading above 50% - you can just look at the talk page to see people are leaning this way. Arguably this market should have already closed, because the wikipedia page did list it for a while (there was weasel language, but it clearly was 'listed', which was the resolution criteria), prior to the market's rules being [clarified/changed] to include a vague appeal to 'broader consensus'. But I think this mainly tells us about wikipedia, rather than about reality.

After all, we don't want to do the most good in cause area X but the most good, period.

Yes, and 80k think that AI safety is the cause area that leads to the most good. 80k never covered all cause areas - they didn't cover the opera or beach cleanup or college scholarships or 99% of all possible cause areas. They have always focused on what they thought were the most important cause areas, and they continue to do so. Cause neutrality doesn't mean 'supporting all possible causes' (which would be absurd), it means 'being willing at support any cause area, if the evidence suggests it is the best'.

Makes sense, seems like a good application of the principle of cause neutrality: being willing to update on information and focus on the most cost-effective cause areas.