Isn't the more important point about having a conflict of interest with pauseAI efforts?

I'll start by saying I absolutely think it's a terrible idea to try to destroy humanity. I am 100% not saying we should do that. Ok, now that we have that out of the way. If you decide to commit your life to x-risk reduction because there are "trillions of units of potential value in the future", you are in a bit of sticky situation if someone credibly argues that the expected value of the future is lower if humans become grabby than if they don't. And that's ok! It's still probably one of the highest EV things you can do. 

And I'll say it again years later, https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KDjEogAqWNTdddF9g/long-termism-vs-existential-risk

this ^ post is not great. The entire thing basically presupposes that human society is positive, that aliens will not exist, that animals will not re-evolve if we die. I wouldn't bring this up if not for it being one most upvoted posts on the forum ever (top 5 if you don't include posts about ea drama). 

So we get to use cold hard rationality to tell most people that the stuff they are doing is relatively worthless compared to x-risk reduction, but when that same rationality argues that x-risk reduction is actually incredibly high variance and may very well be harming trillions of the people in the future we get to be humanists ?

It actually goes more giga brain than this - since aliens are in the picture, or even maybe life can re- evolve on our planet to interstellar intelligence. You might be interested to talk to @Arepo , he's a crucial considerer. I'd especially recommend his post "A proposed hierarchy of longtermist concepts". 

shameless self plugs that also might lead you to some related readings (i'm narcissistic enough to somehow remember almost all my comments on the subject)

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zDJpYMtewowKXkHyG/alien-counterfactuals
 https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zLi3MbMCTtCv9ttyz/formalizing-extinction-risk-reduction-vs-longtermism
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zuQeTaqrjveSiSMYo/?commentId=7s2vrDuxonBqoGrou
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Pnhjveit55DoqBSAF/?commentId=wTkFestNWNorB5mG4
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/YnBwoNNqe6knBJH8p/?commentId=HPsgdWEbdEZH3WN6j
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WebLP36BYDbMAKoa5/?commentId=cJdqyAAzwrL74x2mG

Either way, don't be down on yourself. I know exactly how you feel. There is way too much stuff to know. The fact that you are writing this and reflecting means you are one of the best humans alive right now, regardless of if x-risk is important or not. Keep up the good work.

I guess in thinking about this I realize it's so hard to even know if someone is a "PR disaster" that I probably have just been confirming my biases. What makes you say that he hasn't been?

It has very little to do with the forum. I don't think most people here that think they might be interacting with the executive branch would post anything super negative on the internet if they are thinking clearly. 

If I'm willing to bet, I need to take "edge". 

This is pretty patronizing. You don't know me but do you really think the average person on the EA forum needs that explained?

hence why I wrote 1/20 (95-5). If you believe the chance is <1/100 you are 10x. Given the asymmetry of my/other users knowledge of your internal probability, I understand offering the best possible odds for yourself that you still think the other side would take, but it's a bit of an icky norm to come on here and play poker when people might assume you would be happy to take a 2x-5x bet. More importantly the bet you offered proves nothing in my mind since anywhere between a 1-5% chance of the next election being rigged would still be really really bad and worth hyperventilating about. 

If you want, read my comment to lark. I don't think my resolution criteria are good. It's rather that I don't personally expect the next election to be rigged ( I would be on the same side of the 90/10 bet as you) but I do expect trump to continue to denigrate the checks and balances that we have in this country, whether it be official laws or unofficial norms, hence why I am trying to pose intermediate questions. I'll try to improve the original questions though. 

1/2 - just specify a specific crime that we think most presidents don't commit and would obviously be worth prosecuting. 

3 - really? You think this wouldn't be a clear step towards autocracy?

4 - The general position of MAGA's is that the 2020 election was stolen. 
5- Admittedly a Pretty awful market, just ignore this one 

Again I don't think even these modified versions are good, but I think we can still do better. 

Completely agree - I think all of my markets are bad. However the direction I'm trying to move in by proposing these questions is to operationalize steps along the way towards autocracy. You could semi replicate this but saying ok well will one of the next 5 elections going to be rigged (if you believe you can operationalize this), but even if you could set up a futures market for it I don't think you will get all that much market efficiency from it. 

Betting on the prob of next election is going to paint a very incomplete picture. There is a world in which we are 99% the next election is not going to get rigged but acts during this admin would credibly increase the chance of future riggings by a lot. For instance lets assume trump himself as no interest in being an autocrat. Then he wouldn't rig the election purposely right? And yet the fact that we now have a precedent that you won't be prosecuted for essentially anything if you win the presidency surely changes the incentives of future politicians who are considering meddling. 

This is literally my position. I think the next election is >90% to be "relatively fair", but I also think trump is going to do a ton of stuff that paves the way for a future election to not be fair. Picture below to help explain thesis.

Side note - I think you will not get full honesty from many people here (more likely they just won't comment). Anyone with a public reputation that wants to interact with trump's admin is not going to want to comment (for good reason), plus this subject can be a bit touchy anyway.