First, the researchers have a high degree of credential credibility. […] These are very much not software engineers who think they’ve solved alchemy after talking with ChatGPT for a year or something.
[…]
Optimistically, in my mind this leaves about 10% odds that fusion energy becomes commercialized or at least piloted over the next couple decades and Marathon Fusion’s approach for the alchemical production of gold becomes a meaningful consideration for these fusion plants! That’s pretty high, and implies a high value for continuing to research this technology, even if not necessarily for Marathon Fusion specifically. Manifold [a prediction market] traders are giving this proposition (“Artificially produced gold on a significant scale by 2035?”) ~20% odds, which likely reflects the discount rate on a market that only resolves in 10 years, although it also leaves room for other potential methodologies for gold production (presumably also through fusion energy but who knows).
Yeah, I don’t think “asking people what will happen” is a reliable way to measure pretty much anything, let alone the future, so being more accurate than that is whatever. Additionally, I tried to find where the substack got his numbers for these chances from, and it seems like the answer is out of his ass? So that isn’t very credible either in my opinion.
https://www.marathonfusion.com/alchemy.pdf
https://thebsdetector.substack.com/p/government-funded-alchemy
tldr from that blog's assessment:
[…]
[…]
I… don’t know if I want to believe someone who cites a gambling site as a credible source.
Yeah, I don’t think “asking people what will happen” is a reliable way to measure pretty much anything, let alone the future, so being more accurate than that is whatever. Additionally, I tried to find where the substack got his numbers for these chances from, and it seems like the answer is out of his ass? So that isn’t very credible either in my opinion.
i’d take the citation for economics. maybe business. not physics.