I don't have a link off the top of my head, but the trade would have been to sell one share of yes for each market. You can do this by splitting $1 into a Yes and No share, and selling the Yes. Specifically in Polymarket you achieve this by adding and then withdrawing liquidity (for a specific type of markets called "amm', for "automatic market marker", which were the only ones supported by Polymarket at the time, though it since then also supports an order book).
By doing this, you earn $1.09 from the sale + $3 from the three events eventually, and t...
The framework is AI strategy nearcasting: trying to answer key strategic questions about transformative AI, under the assumption that key events (e.g., the development of transformative AI) will happen in a world that is otherwise relatively similar to today’s.
Usage of "nearcasting" here feels pretty fake. "Nowcasting" is a thing because 538/meteorology/etc. has a track record of success in forecasting and decent feedback loops, and extrapolating those a bit seems neat.
But as used in this case, feedback loops are poor, and it just feels like a differ...
See this comment: <https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCuzmCsE86BTu9PfA/there-are-no-coherence-theorems?commentId=v2mgDWqirqibHTmKb>
You don't have strategic voting with probabilistic results. And the degree of strategic voting can also be mitigated.
Copying my second response from the EA forum:
...Like, I feel like with the same type of argument that is made in the post I could write a post saying "there are no voting impossibility theorems" and then go ahead and argue that the Arrow's Impossibility Theorem assumptions are not universally proven, and then accuse everyone who ever talked about voting impossibility theorems that they are making "an error" since "those things are not real theorems". And I think everyone working on voting-adjacent impossibility theorems would be pretty justifiedly annoyed by
Copying my response from the EA forum:
(if this post is right)
The post does actually seem wrong though.
Glad that I added the caveat.
Also, the title of "there are no coherence arguments" is just straightforwardly wrong. The theorems cited are of course real theorems, they are relevant to agents acting with a certain kind of coherence, and I don't really understand the semantic argument that is happening where it's trying to say that the cited theorems aren't talking about "coherence", when like, they clearly are.
Well, part of the semantic nuance is tha...
Well, part of the semantic nuance is that we don't care as much about the coherence theorems that do exist if they will fail to apply to current and future machines
The correct response to learning that some theorems do not apply as much to reality as you thought, surely mustn't be to change language so as to deny those theorems' existence. Insofar as this is what's going on, these are pretty bad norms of language in my opinion.
I am also curious about the extent to which you are taking the Hoffman scaling laws as an assumption, rather than as something you can assign uncertainty over.
I thought this was great, cheers.
Here:
Next, we estimate a sufficient horizon length, which I'll call the k-horizon, over which we expect the most complex reasoning to emerge during the transformative task. For the case of scientific research, we might reasonably take the k-horizon to roughly be the length of an average scientific paper, which is likely between 3,000 and 10,000 words. However, we can also explicitly model our uncertainty about the right choice for this parameter.
It's unclear whether the final paper would be the needed horizon length.
F...
But I think it is >30% likely you can compensate for past over or under estimations.
I'd bet against that at 1:5, i.e., against the proposition that the optimal forecast is not subject to your previous history
This is true in the abstract, but the physical word seems to be such that difficult computations are done for free in the physical substrate (e.g,. when you throw a ball, this seems to happen instantaneously, rather than having to wait for a lengthy derivation of the path it traces). This suggests a correct bias in favor of low-complexity theories regardless of their computational cost, at least in physics.
Seems like this assumes an actual superintelligence, rather than near-term scarily capable successor of current ML systems.
Good question. Some thoughts on why do this:
Software: archivenow
Need: Archiving websites to the internet archive.
Other programs I've tried: The archive.org website, spn, various scripts, various extensions.
archivenow is trusty enough for my use case, and it feels like it fails less often than other alternatives. It was also easy enough to wrap into a bash script and process markdown files. Spn is newer and has parallelism, but I'm not as familiar with it and subjectively it feels like it fails a bit more.
See also: Gwern's setup.
Have prediction markets which pay $100 per share, but only pay out 1% of the time, chosen randomly. If the 1% case that happens, then also implement the policy under consideration.
Have prediction markets which pay $100 per share, but only pay out 1% of the time, chosen randomly. If the 1% case that happens, then also implement the policy under consideration.
The issue is that probabilities for something that will either happen or not don't really make sense in a literal way
This is just wrong/frequentist. Search for the "Bayesian" view of probability.
Will SMTM answer NCM's post criticizing their Lithium theory? <https://manifold.markets/NuñoSempere/will-smtm-answer-ncms-post-criticiz>
https://metaforecast.org/?query=ETH+merge -> https://polymarket.com/market-group/ethereum-merge-pos -> 59% by October, 87% by November.
The Litany of Might
I strive to take whatever steps may help me best to reach my goals,
I strive to be the very best at what I strive
There is no glory in bygone hopes,
There is no shame in aiming for the win,
there is no choice besides my very best,
to play my top moves and disregard the rest
I was assigning less than 3% probability to ~plagiarism being the case, mostly based on Isusr not mentioning that at all in the original post + people seeing similarities where there are none. But seems that I was wrong.
Curious if you know where those people come from?
Sure, see here: https://imgur.com/a/pMR7Qw4
I'm not sure to what extent there's a "forecasting scene", or who is part of it.
There is a forecasting scene, made out of hobbyist forecasters and more hardcore prediction market players, and a bunch of researchers. The best prediction market people tend to have fairly sharp models of the world, particularly around elections. They also have a pretty high willingness to bet.
I've become a bit discouraged by the lack of positive reception for my forecasting newsletter on LessWrong, to which I've been publishing it since April 2020. For example, I thought that Forecasting Newsletter: Looking back at 2021 was excellent. It was very favorably reviewed by Scott Alexander here. I poured a bunch of myself into that newsletter. It got 18 karma.
I haven't bothered crossposting it to LW this month, but it continues in substack and on the EA forum.
Alas, that also makes me sad. I wonder whether this means something is going wrong in the basic attention-allocation system on the site. I've enjoyed every newsletter that I read, but I only noticed like 2-3 (and upvoted each of them correspondingly).
Introspecting on my experience, I actually think the biggest difference for me would have been if you had given any of them a more evocative title that had captured the most important thing in that month's newsletter. I definitely feel a strong sense of boredom if I imagine clicking on "Forecasting Newsletter March 2021" instead of "Nuclear war forecasts & new forecasting platforms (Forecasting Newsletter Mar '21)".
That's sad.
Looks like you're getting decent engagement on substack. Curious if you know where those people come from? I'm not sure to what extent there's a "forecasting scene", or who is part of it.
Speaking as a non-forecast-specialized-person – I have a belief that it's good to have a forecasting scene that is developing tech/skills/infrastructure. But so far, whether rightly or wrongly, I've mostly thought of that as something that's good/virtuous for other people to do. A newsletter feels like something that makes sense to read if I want to ...
Odds are an alternative way of presenting probabilities. 50% corresponds to 1:1, 66.66..% corresponds to 1:2, 90% corresponds to 1:9, etc. 33.33..% correspond to 2:1 odds, or, with the first number as as a 1, 1:0.5 odds.
Log odds, or bits, are the logarithm of probabilities expressed as 1:x odds. In some cases, they can be a more natural way of thinking about probabilities (see e.g., here.)
Couldn't they just get lower interest rate loans elsewhere?
This doesn't mean necessarily that you shouldn't take the bet, but maybe that you should also take the loan.
When I tried using tmux to get a similar effect the main problem I had was that if I tried to select text with the mouse it didn't understand my panes. And I couldn't figure out how to get it to do focus-follows-mouse between the panes
This works in Ubuntu 20.04:
# selection
## Source: https://www.rockyourcode.com/copy-and-paste-in-tmux/
set-option -g mouse on ## key line
set-option -s set-clipboard off
bind-key -T copy-mode-vi MouseDragEnd1Pane send-keys -X copy-pipe-and-cancel 'xclip -se c -i'
## Bonus: Pasting, vim bindings
bind P paste-buffer
bind-key -... Tmux only has the default prefix be C-b because it was developed inside Screen, which has C-a. But the first thing that everybody does is to map it to C-a.
Kinda annoying how this one was the most upvoted of my forecasting newsletters. I would also recommend Forecasting Newsletter: Looking back at 2021 and 2020: Forecasting in Review.
Right, just seed a prediction market maker using a logarithmic scoring rule, where the market's prior probability is given by Solomonoff. There is the small issue of choosing a Turing interpreter, but I think we just choose the Lisp language as a reasonably elegant one.
Something is less than three percent. Or, a heart emoji followed by a percentage sign.
My favourite interpretation is that the "<3" is a heart emoji. Then the "%" sign is supposed to remind us of the comment character in eg. python. But nothing follows the %-symbol, so the full meaning is "I love this, no comment."
Good idea. One could also go Turing machine by Turing machine, voting on the ones which would produce the most upvoted content. Then you can just read the binary output as html.
Prediction market with Solomonoff prior. The theoretically most efficient way to do anything.
(I wonder if we just found a solution to AI alignment. Start with the simplest machines, and let the prediction markets vote on whether they will destroy the world...)
Thank you for the kind comment, although you might want to refer to Thiel with more respect. He has done great things – terrible, yes, but great.
Obwohl in Ihren Schertz genossen habe, finde ich höchst unwahscheinlich, dass Herr Davon seinen Namen gewechselt hätte, nur um die Wahl zu gewinnen.
Because the space of possible things one could do is vast, and optimal actions are far in between
A few years later: Mars Emperor Tim Chu vows to colonize Andromeda. Prediction markets rose to 99% upon announcement, up from an early estimate of 0.5% (source: Metacortex.)
It's not a world war if China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, Ethiopia, the Phillipines, Egypt and Vietnam aren't fighting.
As a nitpick, see the Kuril Islands and Japan recently calling them "ancestral territories"
fwiw I do think that it's a concern. But there is also an anti-inductiveness to close calls, where the more you've had in the past the more measures that might have been implemented to avoid future close calls.
So e.g., updating upwards on the Cuba missile crisis doesn't feel right, because the red phone got implemented after that.
One particularity of polymarket is that you couldn't as of the time of this market divide $1 into four shares and sell all of them for $1.09. If you could have--well, then this problem wouldn't have existed--but if you could have then this would have been a 9%.