It is that time of the year. One must ask not only whether predictions were right or wrong, whether one won or lost, but what one was and should have been thinking, whether or not good decisions were made, whether the market made sense. The main subject will be the 2023 ACX Predictions,
I think that if you don't want the deep dive you simply skip the quoted text, perhaps most of the rest, or just read the top/bottom if you'd like. This kind of thing is best done either properly or not at all.
I liked this article, always appreciate these (sorry makin I'm going to have to disagree, I think for these types of articles this is the only way to do them).
Good job. Maybe a good heuristic in the future is to not bet on any market where there is any level of ambiguity as to what counts as resolution, since you seemed to lose more on those than others. (Resolution ambiguity is one of my least favorite aspects of prediction markets.)
Your results align with a half-formed intuition I developed from a year of trading on Manifold that I am trying to find a way to express well -- here's one attempt: "outcomes that depend on people doing non-default specific things mostly don't end up happening". Even when they seem perfectly plausible, people seem to just plain do fewer things (especially even-slightly-novel things) than one would expect given the population and the incentives. Maybe this is just due to how big the space of possible actions is (so ~all possible actions stay unattempted), or maybe it is because of how non-strategic humans are most of the time (drifting along following our local incentive gradients)?
> Will a successful deepfake attempt causing real damage make the front page of a major news source in 2023 (44%/33%)?
> I ended up losing M153. This stayed around 90% right until the end due to uncertainty over resolution. I’m still not entirely sure which article is considered to have counted, or what damage was inflicted. In spirit, I’m not convinced this actually happened. Who was harmed?
Small note: I think the correct market link for 10 would have been https://manifold.markets/ACXBot/10-will-china-launch-a-fullscale-in
There has to be a less verbose way of formatting this... not a very readable article as it is, sorry.
I think that if you don't want the deep dive you simply skip the quoted text, perhaps most of the rest, or just read the top/bottom if you'd like. This kind of thing is best done either properly or not at all.
I thought it was perfectly readable.
I appreciated the content.
I liked this article, always appreciate these (sorry makin I'm going to have to disagree, I think for these types of articles this is the only way to do them).
Good job. Maybe a good heuristic in the future is to not bet on any market where there is any level of ambiguity as to what counts as resolution, since you seemed to lose more on those than others. (Resolution ambiguity is one of my least favorite aspects of prediction markets.)
Yeah, this was a major source of frustration for me on this market: https://manifold.markets/Soli/will-dalle-3-consistently-generate. I did my best to create an unambiguous follow up market for DALL-E 4 that will hopefully stand the test of time: https://manifold.markets/nsokolsky/will-dalle-4-be-able-to-generate-an
Your results align with a half-formed intuition I developed from a year of trading on Manifold that I am trying to find a way to express well -- here's one attempt: "outcomes that depend on people doing non-default specific things mostly don't end up happening". Even when they seem perfectly plausible, people seem to just plain do fewer things (especially even-slightly-novel things) than one would expect given the population and the incentives. Maybe this is just due to how big the space of possible actions is (so ~all possible actions stay unattempted), or maybe it is because of how non-strategic humans are most of the time (drifting along following our local incentive gradients)?
> Will a successful deepfake attempt causing real damage make the front page of a major news source in 2023 (44%/33%)?
> I ended up losing M153. This stayed around 90% right until the end due to uncertainty over resolution. I’m still not entirely sure which article is considered to have counted, or what damage was inflicted. In spirit, I’m not convinced this actually happened. Who was harmed?
This one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/deepfake-phone-scame-1.6793296