@Ben Pace: For a brand-new, never-been-tested, fully self-sustaining off-Earth colony, $50B seems super low to me. I think it's got to be in the many many trillions at the very minimum. For some time scales, even infinite money might not be enough. Creating a whole robot/non-atmosphere economy with positive energy ROI is something that no one knows how to do. Much of today's wealth comes from cheap human labor and massive economies of scale. An off-Earth colony would possess neither of these advantages.

Hmm. I find it difficult to form an opinion on a claim as fuzzy as this. I am sensitive of appearing over-critical, but I worry that Arbital will not be useful in building up knowledge or changing any minds if everyone ends up disagreeing over what the claims even mean. If Arbital is to be useful or impactful, and not just a way to signal our opinions at each other, I really think a strong priority needs to be developing community standards for claims.

Here are some of my concerns with this claim in particular:

(1) What is meant by "many"? 5? 50? 500? I honestly have no clue. And therefore if someone agrees or disagrees with this claim, it's hard for me to update my own beliefs because I don't know how they personally interpreted the claim.

(2) What projects are titled EA Blank? I put forward a good-faith Google effort, but found video games by Electronic Arts. Clearly those are irrelevant, but I don't know how to find the EA projects this claim is covering. A few examples might be nice.

(3) What is "be more useful"? This is probably my most serious concern. I am 100% sure that better paths exist where these projects are disbanded and better projects are accomplished in their stead. However, I am also 100% sure that worse paths exist where these projects are disbanded and nothing better is accomplished in their stead. How should one weight these counterfactual scenarios? Should I mark 'agree' if I think they could be doing a better job? Should I mark 'disagree' if I think they could be doing a worse job? What if I think both?

(4) To be honest, I don't even understand the commas in the question. It seems to say disband OR rename AND aim bigger. Should I interpret this as 'disband and aim bigger' OR 'rename and aim bigger'? It's a little hard for me to parse, which worries me because people might interpret it differently for their answers.

Anyway, I feel bad writing all this criticism. I worry the rationalist community is already too negative and anti-oriented, and I hope it becomes more warm and welcoming. Please know that I wrote this reluctantly, and because I hope it will be useful. If Arbital is to become what I assume y'all want it to become, I think it needs far clearer claims. (And I say this as someone who is aware that language will always be fuzzy and open to different interpretation. I just think we can do far better.)

Suggested edit: remove the word 'permanent' from the claim. It seems a little funny in the context of x-risk. I think 'self-sustaining' covers the intended meaning by itself.

(My first comment on Arbital. Hopefully it contributes.)

As someone who has traded on prediction markets for years, I agree with the sentiment.

Unfortunately, this claim itself seems really ambiguous. I voted neutral because I'm having a difficult time evaluating what the claim means. I appreciate the attempted clarification of 'at least 30% more valuable to people sharing models', but it leaves me confused. How is value measured? How would I be able to distinguish 20% more valuable from 40% more valuable? And who are these people sharing models? When and where are they doing their sharing?

I think we all agree that language will always have some wiggle room for uncertainty and interpretation. But in this particular case, I have no idea how to distinguish worlds where this statement is true from worlds where this statement is false. That's why I voted neutral.

I wish I could give a more constructive suggestion of how this claim could be reworded. I've spent a few minutes thinking about it but I don't have anything great. If anything, I'd remove the first asterisk.