The prediction markets are great in theory but, like you said, using play-money and overall small volume of participants in any given prediction limits their usefulness.
But, AI to the rescue!
I used two methods to try and predict the likelihood of success with the best *current methods* of cryopreservation. Both were worded to try and focus in on whether the tech would exist to revive a person cryopreserved today, not whether a specific person would make it (eg. doesn't account for natural disasters or other non-tech problems).
Indeed. I just finished writing the chapter of my book that covers revival. We will definitely want support from a community of revivees, and from AI assistants, and human reintegration specialists.
It's going to be people like ourselves, the future members of these organizations or successor organizations, who will be doing the reanimation. Think of the 22nd century version of the "milieu". Unless cryonics becomes widespread accepted practice by, say, mid '22, I do not expect "regular" people or organizations to reanimate us. We (future people like us) will have to develop the technology and do it ourselves. We will be adapting off-the-shelf bioengineering to accomplish this. But we will have to do the work ourselves.
Where we get reanimated will depend, again, on how wide spread the practice is. If cryonics is a regular part of society (like the internet) then it could be anywhere, even Scottsdale Arizona. But if its not, it will most likely be a seastead or a space colony owned and run by people like us.
The prediction markets are great in theory but, like you said, using play-money and overall small volume of participants in any given prediction limits their usefulness.
But, AI to the rescue!
I used two methods to try and predict the likelihood of success with the best *current methods* of cryopreservation. Both were worded to try and focus in on whether the tech would exist to revive a person cryopreserved today, not whether a specific person would make it (eg. doesn't account for natural disasters or other non-tech problems).
According to FutureSearch:
- 12% chance of biological revival by Jan 1, 2300. https://app.futuresearch.ai/forecasts/nPNBk/public
According to Deep Research (o3 behind the scenes):
- 10% chance of biological revival by Jan 1, 2200.
- 30% chance of upload-based revival by Jan 1, 2200.
- 45% Probability that *at least one* of these succeeds.
https://chatgpt.com/share/67e78618-d280-8006-806a-7a8910061075
Not bad, but lots of work to be done still.
If it works, I would say sometime starting with the middle of the 22nd century and into the 23rd century.
If it works, being reanimated 100-200 years in the future is going to be quite a head-trip.
Indeed. I just finished writing the chapter of my book that covers revival. We will definitely want support from a community of revivees, and from AI assistants, and human reintegration specialists.
It's going to be people like ourselves, the future members of these organizations or successor organizations, who will be doing the reanimation. Think of the 22nd century version of the "milieu". Unless cryonics becomes widespread accepted practice by, say, mid '22, I do not expect "regular" people or organizations to reanimate us. We (future people like us) will have to develop the technology and do it ourselves. We will be adapting off-the-shelf bioengineering to accomplish this. But we will have to do the work ourselves.
Where we get reanimated will depend, again, on how wide spread the practice is. If cryonics is a regular part of society (like the internet) then it could be anywhere, even Scottsdale Arizona. But if its not, it will most likely be a seastead or a space colony owned and run by people like us.
One wild card is the possibility of FTL.