In addition to not being able to exchange $100 for a set of contracts, there'd be some awkwardness over determining where to set the starting trade value. Notice in the original article it's initally $15 to sell and $20 to buy, reflecting the fact that a 6 character mystery implies a base probability of 16.6% for each character. If you naively started a slasher at $15 sell/$20 buy, someone who believes two survivors is likely would immediately bid all characters up to $30 sell/$40 buy.
Though you're right, most slashers don't try nearly as hard to surprise you as murder mysteries do. A movie that establishes a romance subplot 10 minutes in would immediately see those two characters bid up to at least $50.
That works. Though now card price doesn't actually reflect a character's implied probability of surviving. Eg buying a card at $40 is a confident move if there's a chance of two survivors, and always loses money if there's 3.
Instead it'd be $100*p(surviving|1 survivor) + $50*p(surviving|2 survivors) + $33*p(surviving|3 survivors)... which makes it a lot harder to think about whether to buy or sell. Could make things more interesting though.
I'd love to know what else this could work for. Slasher flicks might work, or any movie with an ensemble cast that gets killed off one by one until only one or two remain. Players would probably have to know in advance exactly how many survive, such that the initial trading values can be set appropriately (if 2 of 8 survive, then the initial trading value should start at 30 to buy, 20 to sell.) The number of survivors would also set the cost of the "buy all contracts" option.
Slasher flicks would have more action early on as characters are eliminated in gruesome fashion, but the winner might also be determined well before the end of the movie.
"If atoms are really to explain the origin of color and smell of visible material bodies, then they cannot possess properties like color and smell."
I want to point out that in this post, you were quoting sediment quoting Hofstadter who was referencing Hanson's quoting of Heisenberg. Pretty sure even Inception didn't go that deep.
For the "Only Shallow" one, I couldn't think of a good way to break it down, and so began by approximating the total number of listens at 2 million. My final estimate was off by a factor of one.
People like Ezra Klein are hearing Eliezer and rolling his position into their own more palatable takes. I really don't think it's necessary for everyone to play that game, it seems really good to have someone out there just speaking honestly, even if they're far on the pessimistic tail, so others can see what's possible. 4D chess here seems likely to fail.
https://steno.ai/the-ezra-klein-show/my-view-on-ai
Also, there's the sentiment going around that normies who hear this are actually way more open to the simple AI Safety case than you'd expect, we've been extrapolating too much from current critics. Tech people have had years to formulate rationalizations and reassure one another they are clever skeptics for dismissing this stuff. Meanwhile regular folks will often spout off casual proclamations that the world is likely ending due to climate change or social decay or whatever, they seem to err on the side of doomerism as often as the opposite. The fact that Eliezer got published in TIME is already a huge point in favor of his strategy working.
EDIT: Case in point! Met a person tonight, completely offline rural anti-vax astrology doesn't-follow-the-news type of person, I said the word AI and immediately she says she thinks "robots will eventually take over". I understand this might not be the level of sophistication we'd desire, but at least be aware that raw material is out there. No idea how it'll play out, but 4d chess still seems like a mistake, let Yud speak his truth.