Reducing as there are no relevant developments that could indicate otherwise.
-0.036293
Relative Brier Score
36
Forecasts
5
Upvotes
Forecasting Activity
Forecasting Calendar
| Past Week | Past Month | Past Year | This Season | All Time | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forecasts | 11 | 33 | 482 | 36 | 2305 |
| Comments | 7 | 16 | 61 | 17 | 619 |
| Questions Forecasted | 11 | 32 | 78 | 33 | 256 |
| Upvotes on Comments By This User | 2 | 4 | 51 | 5 | 296 |
| Definitions | |||||
New Prediction
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
4%
(-11%)
Yes
96%
(+11%)
No
New Badge
Power Forecaster - Jan 2025
Earned for making 20+ forecasts in a month.
New Badge
Star Commenter - Jan 2025
Earned for making 5+ comments in a month (rationales not included).
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
40%
Chemical
3%
Biological
3%
Radiological
1%
Nuclear
Why do you think you're right?
Going more conservative than the rest of my fellow forecasters.
There is a big gap between Chemicals and the other three types of weapons, mainly because those are the most passable to use within certain contexts, at least that is what data tells us. Chemical warfare has been used in several instances in the last decades and other ones have been rumored but not confirmed.
Given the current geopolitical landscape, we could establish a base case with recent uses or supposed uses of these: the Iran-Iraq war, the Syrian civil war, and Iraq during the fight vs ISIS. There are also unconfirmed reports that the Gaddafi regime in Lybia used mustard gas but I'll not count that one. Also considering that the political and military environment is destabilizing, I will increase the likelihood by a few percentages more.
Using any other type of weapon would change the international status quo or intend a larger response toward the given actor.
Something to consider: if by any chance, there is a world conflict in the mentioned timeframe, the likelihood of any of these types of weapons increases significantly as there is less risk of reprisal as the countries are already at war.
Files
Why might you be wrong?
Maybe I'm underestimating the willingness of some rogue actors to use these types of weapons.
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
15%
Yes
85%
No
Why do you think you're right?
I'm far beyond my comfort zone with these questions on biotech, however, from what I could gather and with the information and discussion we had on the call, I would infer that the probability is very low given the time frame given and the lack of new papers publishing further developments after the MIT paper from 2020 that stated that 164 were able to be chained.
Files
Why might you be wrong?
Government incentives could play a significant role in faster development.
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
0%
(-1%)
Yes
100%
(+1%)
No
Why do you think you're right?
The junta just extended the State of Emergency for another six months.
Files
Why might you be wrong?
No change
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
15%
Yes
85%
No
Why do you think you're right?
I am a bit more optimistic than my fellow forecasters in this question mainly because there have been serious advances toward full implementation in some test subjects. In my opinion, there are some factors that are not being considered:
1. There is competition towards innovation from several companies trying to achieve a secure way to implant a BCI, which might put some pressure to accelerate research, meaning more investment and overall breakthroughs.
2. Because Elon Musk is so close to Donald Trump, we could expect more openness from the government to grant more permits and clinical tests on new people, contributing to my first point.
3. The fact that it seems that the US is in a tech race vs China might also be a factor.
4. The health sector in the US might change completely if RFK Jr is named Health Secretary.
5. Trump´s acts to develop more technological advancements.
Files
Why might you be wrong?
There are significant challenges ahead, in particular in managing to get a permit to implant devices in healthy or able-bodied people, especially if it involves brain surgery (like Neuralik´s device). Also, there are ethical concerns regarding cognitive enhancement and privacy, and potential unintended consequences could slow regulatory approval.
Also, I don't have expertise in this area.
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
1%
(0%)
Argentina
7%
(0%)
Bolivia
3%
(0%)
Ecuador
Confirmed previous forecast
Files
Why do you think you're right?
Given that I have no expertise in the area, I relied on the research I could gather and fellow forecaster´s rationales.
The two main barriers are: 1) The long time it takes the FDA to approve a drug, which could take decades, and 2) The EXTREMELY complex process of making a full blood substitute.
Given the comments I've seen on this matter, it seems almost impossible that there are any types of innovations in this timeframe to complete the requirement of the question. Especially given that the most recent developments tend to infer that the research is still behind the question´s objectives.
Why might you be wrong?
There could be unseen breakthroughs that we are not taking into consideration.