Well what's the appropriate way to act in the face of the fact that I AM sure I am right?
I agree that my suggestion was not especially helpful.
I think a generic answer is "read the sequences"? Here's a fun one
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qRWfvgJG75ESLRNu9/the-crackpot-offer
With regards to subsidizing: all the subsidizer needs to do in order to incentivize work on P is sell shares of P. If they are short P when P is proven, they lose money -- this money in effect goes to the people who worked to prove it.
To be more concrete:
Suppose P is trading at 0.50. I think I can prove P with one hour of work. Then an action available to me is to buy 100 shares of P, prove it, and then sell them back for $50 of profit.
But my going fee is $55/hour, so I don't do it.
Then a grantmaker comes along and offers to sell some shares at $0.40. Now the price is right for me, so I buy and prove and make $60/hr.
https://gwern.net/tool-ai
I think part of your point, translated to local language is "GPTs are Tool AIs, and Tool AI doesn't necessarily become agentic"
IMO those issues are all very minor, even when summed.
Is that relevant? Imagine that we were discussing the replacement of a ramp with stairs. This has a very minor effect on my experience -- is that enough to conclude the change was benign?
This is an example where the true distribution of future prices is bimodal (with the average between the modes). If all you can do is buy or sell stock, then you actually have to disagree with the market about the distribution to make money.
Without having information about the probability of default, there might still be something to do based on the vol curve.
MoviePass was paying full price for every ticket.