All of Zvi's Comments + Replies

Covid 5/6: Vaccine Patent Suspension

Yep, good catch, updated original. Mods, please reimport.

When's the best time to get the 2nd dose of Pfizer Vaccine?
Answer by ZviApr 30, 20212

The vaccine is sufficiently effective 3 weeks later that you should get it 3 weeks later and resume your life as quickly as possible, at least in USA where there's enough to go around.

It is possible that 6 weeks is slightly better, but there's no way you'd give up those 3 weeks in between to get that effect even if it's true.

Covid 4/29: Vaccination Slowdown

Yeah, I could more clear that we've made good changes, probably should. The change on ingredients is highly welcome but mostly us no longer stopping this from happening - we've stopped interfering. Which, yay?

Covid 4/29: Vaccination Slowdown

He's kinda being wrong on the internet and highlighting it didn't seem like it would be helping?

Scott Alexander 2021 Predictions: Buy/Sell/Hold

Would be happy if this happened but definitely don't have the bandwidth to do it myself.

Scott Alexander 2021 Predictions: Buy/Sell/Hold

On reflection I decided I'm still at 10%, because a new strain might disrupt things and force Google to delay that policy. 

[Mods: I've edited the original for this and for the Vitamin D question, please re-input.]

2maia3dWelp. I lose points on this one [] Wasn't expecting them to bend but it seems they are after all.
2maia11dFair. I was also debating between 5-10%. I have some inside information on this as an ex-Alphabet employee; I have a strong impression that execs do not want to do this. Employees were clamoring for a policy statement on this for months and they hemmed, hawed, dodged the question, delayed for months, and ultimately refused. New strains could delay things more, but I would be surprised if they don't ultimately make people go back to the office as soon as they reasonably can. Presence in Mountain View or occasionally other offices is one of the few places where employees really want something and Alphabet execs, historically, have drawn a fairly hard line that they can't have it.
Scott Alexander 2021 Predictions: Buy/Sell/Hold

See latest Covid post, it's already much higher.

1Timothy Underwood10dYeah, I read that as a cumulative case statement (and I also thought Scott made the prediction before the current explosion in counts). I also find it really interesting living in Hungary the way that the Covid numbers are being talked about in India. The official numbers just don't seem very bad yet. OTOH Hungary managed to top the world leagues in something everyone talks about for the first time since it lost its most suicides per capita crown to some other depressed Eastern European nation (I'm guessing that is who took it from the Hungarians), so I think my sense of how bad particular Covid numbers are is skewed by living here. We will get to stop worrying about Covid a full month earlier than the rest of the EU though, so that's good.
1Liam Donovan11dCumulative cases are still much lower, right? I assumed that "case count" meant cumulative cases, but it sounds like you're interpreting it as daily cases, which would explain our difference. Given that Scott only gives 50% chance it seems much more likely that he meant cumulative cases too imho
4Measure11dMaybe Scott means cumulative cases here?
Scott Alexander 2021 Predictions: Buy/Sell/Hold

Not easy money because there's no way to bet. Scott presumably didn't know, but that doesn't make this 0%. I'd still be at 5% here.

4Zvi11dOn reflection I decided I'm still at 10%, because a new strain might disrupt things and force Google to delay that policy. [Mods: I've edited the original for this and for the Vitamin D question, please re-input.]
Covid 4/9: Another Vaccine Passport Objection

Covid 4/15: Are We Seriously Doing This Again is in my drafts folder. Don't worry.

5Cesare25dBless. Being angry together with strangers on the internet is so much better than being angry alone.
Covid 4/1: Vaccine Passports

I would encourage you to make this a top-level post, I think there's a lot of very useful content here and I'd like to be able to comment / refer back to it. I'm especially interested in exploring why these particular areas have so much fraud relative to other areas slash whether this is true - one question is whether these are areas where we call people who lie or misrepresent out as committing fraud, whereas in other places maybe we don't as much do so. 

The solutions on the other hand don't seem viable to me. E.g. having a system where it will tell ... (read more)

1tkpwaeub1moSo I guess another approach that would make vaccine passports palatable to everyone would be if we just went ahead and gave everybody something similar to the Excelsior pass (either on their phone or printed), where we'd attempt to implement that underlying logic of "x% vaccinated or y% capacity" in real time. The venue would stop allowing new people in when neither of those conditions are met, and nobody would see anybody's personal information. And it would take away any motive for the prospective attendee to cheat. This could also be leveraged for contact tracing, and perhaps the expectation would be that you get a test if you don't feel well, or if a contact tracer tracks you down. I don't think it would be too difficult to deploy something like this (all-in-one contact tracing/vaccination tracking/compliance app)
1tkpwaeub1moYeah, so I guess my point is that in the spirit of "less wrong", making a beeline for aggregate statistics appears to me to be the "least wrong". There's also somewhat promising evidence that there's going to be enough self selection that Bayes' Theorem will have our backs even without incentives. Kinda like how there are a lot of uh, people like me in movie theaters on December 25th.
Covid 4/1: Vaccine Passports

Very cool! This is an interesting example because it shows the system protecting the information in at least one case, but also shows that yes the government damn well tried to get the information, despite it being an information source that was deeply important to protect - if census info leaked and it got out our ability to do a census would be crippled.

Covid 4/1: Vaccine Passports

I think this assumes that the system needs to be more robust than the current system, by a lot, plus also gain privacy. What I'm saying is that (1) yes we could do both if we cared enough, in theory, because we have proof by example but also (2) we don't need that level of robustness. We need something harder to fake than a Fake ID, where the QR code doesn't reveal who you are, so you can't be tracked beyond the existing ability to track cell phones. 

There's a trade-off of security vs. privacy for sure, but right now the existing systems are lousy at best on both.

6DanArmak1moWhat's the example you're thinking of? I'm sorry if you mentioned it before and I missed it. If I understand correctly, you don't want the QR code to prove that "John Doe, ID #123456789, is vaccinated" and then have the verifier ask to see a separate, pre-existing ID that shows you're John Doe. Which is how the actual and proposed vaccination passports in Israel and some of the EU work. (Hence I don't know what example you're thinking of.) Instead you want the QR code to prove that "the bearer of this code is vaccinated". That implies the code must be secret and not trivially shareable between many different people. But copying images and taking screenshots is trivial. So the code must not be a single permanent QR per person, but generated by the application: either frequently replaced (like OTP) or on-demand (challenge-response protocol). This could work if installing or activating the app required approval from a central database / service. This approach has difficulties I noted before, including proving to the app you're you, and multiple activations. And it still lets the app owner track you, since the app stays active. What approach are you thinking of?
Covid 3/25: Own Goals

You can argue that risk is so low that bothering with vaccination for young people isn't worth it on selfish grounds and it is somehow more ethical then to not recommend it. I would strongly disagree due to long term risks of Covid, which are much higher than any risks of vaccination.

But also, blood clots are a disease of aging. Young people are at almost no risk of those. So even if the danger were real, which it isn't and even if there it was stupidly tiny, it would be orders of magnitude lower here.

So any argument to not recommend would have applied before anyway.

3Primer1moI'm not arguing vaccination vs. no vaccination for young people, I'm arguing that it might not be such a bad idea for young women with a corresponding risk profile to wait a few months (at least half of which will be spent in lockdown anyways) for Biontech or Moderna. Should you skip Astrazeneca today in order to get Biontech tomorrow? I'd say yes. Should you skip Astrazeneca now for Biontech in September if you are a young healthy woman? Maybe.
Covid 3/25: Own Goals

Cruz was speaking to a TV audience and was essentially right.

Covid 3/25: Own Goals

Ah, so it's effectively an Aella poll. She's got quite the Twitter poll business going. Her followers are definitely not as rationalist, although a lot more rationalist than average. Interesting.

Covid 3/18: An Expected Quantity of Blood Clots

I do not think everyone understands this, and I think if they did (in general understand such things) the world would look very different. Certainly those messaging do not think people understand it.

Walid Gellad is a relatively prominent Very Serious Person epidemiologist, but not one of the most known/influential, so makes sense you don't know, but he's one of the chorus of people doing the thing in quesiton.

5jmh2moI'm not sure about that. Seems like everyone gets that posted speed limits are not magic numbers such that exceeding them to any extent leads to carnage and high repair costs or that adhering to them ensure one avoids such results. The 6 foot rule is not really any different of a concept. My experience has been that people generally give reasonable space, often erring towards more space than less where that choice is clearly possible. Given that most people seem to get the arbitrary number is posted to give everyone some common standard to coordinate around without it being some type of exact numerical value of specific import. As for those doing the messaging are also likely doing so based on filtered and skewed information -- just a variation on the central planner problem of non-omniscience.
Covid 3/18: An Expected Quantity of Blood Clots

The EMA report saying that there may be an association with very rare blood clots (which would still imply far more blood clots prevented than caused because Covid causes blood clots + math) came out after I hit the publish button. I agree that they then changed their tune from the pure explicit 'no evidence' line to a new line of Very Serious Person language designed to make it easier for everyone to resume. 

When I say p-hacking, I mean that the search function was identical to what happens when people p-hack, with identical results - they're looking... (read more)

2Sherrinford2moAssuming that you refer to a biological mechanism, there are people who claim to have found just that [,coronavirus4660.html] .
2Sherrinford2moI may be naive and sound like a broken record but I still think it would be helpful if claims about what some said or did were backed up by a link or something. So when you say p-hacking, you don't really mean people p-hack? Or maybe I don't understand the aim of your word choice - is this just rhetorics, and not meant to be accurate? It seems related to the questions whether MLK was a criminal, and tax is theft? [] So no one has denied that - was there any public accusation to deny it? Any discussion where it would have to be denied? Or was there at least a serious indication that "the search took place in this fashion"? "the authorities" seems like a word that doesn't explain anything. The health minister possibly does not "use an adjusted background rate", he relies on judgement by a specialized agency. Assuming that this agency does not use an adjusted background rate seems quite a stretch; of course it's possible, but where is the evidence for that in your summary? Where is the evidence for the claim that "no one silently does such adjustments when they make things seem more safe"? I have no idea why "everyone" should be on that side, and again, I don't see any evidence for that. Asked by Watson, 220 German politicians today publicly stated their trust in AZ [] . Your implicit model of politics (or of whatever, I still don't know who "everyone" is) seems to be wrong.
3ChristianKl2moIt was around five or at a maximum ten minutes. They had one press conference in which the first person that spoke for longer laid out both.
Covid 3/12: New CDC Guidelines Available

1400 deaths from about 70 million shots after lag, so even if that was 100% the vaccine, that would be a death rate of 1 in 50k. Seems well worth taking. But also if life expectancy vis about 80 years, that's about 30k days, so if they report deaths that day, and vaccinate a lot of elderly, isn't 1400 deaths on 70mm shots below baseline?

If you die after a flu shot no one thinks the flu shot kills you. If you happen to die after getting an mRNA shot they report it.

7cistran2moI think I know why the deaths are below baseline as you said. A significant percentage of people who die spend many weeks on their deathbeds, and people on their deathbeds are too sick to be vaccinated.
Covid 3/12: New CDC Guidelines Available

I'll check it out in more detail when I have time. Very plausible you're right.

Got another report it's misleading, so edited to simply link to source for now. Don't have bandwidth/energy to investigate further at the moment.

Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home

Just saw this now but if you link me to the info I'll put in the queue for next week.

1CraigMichael2moI don’t entirely understand the arguments myself, but it goes something like what MarketWatch said here: “Experts are quick to point out that the clinical trials were conducted at different times — Pfizer and Moderna conducted their trials before several mutated variants had been reported, whereas Johnson & Johnson’s trials were conducted after that. Consequently, Johnson & Johnson has clinical-trial data to show its vaccine can work effectively against variants first reported in the U.K., South Africa and Brazil.” [] They link to this ABC news page: [] That actually says it’s least effective against the South African variant.... so... there’s that. I originally heard about it from my wife who heard about it from Sanjay Gupta’s podcast who said there was a study showing this, but I couldn’t find whatever Sanjay was talking about.
Even Inflationary Currencies Should Have Fixed Total Supply

The most important reason for an inflationary currency is to defeat sticky prices and money illusion. Destroying the value of savings over time is not the goal.

1MikkW2moI don't think the typical person arguing for inflation would agree that "Destroying the value of savings over time is not the goal"- this is the reason that I have most commonly heard cited for inflation, since it ensures that people spend their money and engage in trade. Having done some more reading, I agree that overcoming the cognitive bias where people don't want prices to change is an important use of inflation, and I agree that my proposal does not succeed in addressing this, since the entire point there is that by changing the value of a currency, you can get people to accept lower de facto wages without lowering their nominal (perceived) wage. I will point out that this currently only works in one direction, and does not help people to accept paying higher prices for goods (aside from more quickly forcing sellers to the point where they have to raise prices, at which point they may just as well set a reasonable de facto price that consumers would not otherwise have accepted). I also note that this usage feels somewhat dishonest to me, since it inherently works by creating a mismatch between people's intuitive maps of the world and the actual reality of the situation.
Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home

I think it's not clear which way it will go, depends on a bunch of unknown variables and where they land. The toy model can be tinkered with. But if it's actually more deadly too then yes deaths almost have to rise before falling.

1bfinn2moIt now seems it's about 60% more deadly: [] Ah I see you discuss this in your latest post, just posted.
Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home

No, this is on the basis of not trusting any claims from chinese scientists or studies because track record. So my heuristic is to watch what they do. If you can confirm that the top party officials got it, go for it. Otherwise, avoid.

Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home

I'm saying you should consider funding more basic research like mRNA vaccines and less bednets. Or setting up medical cruise ships for challenge trials in international waters. Or focusing on epistemics or even policy.

Also, if the pandemic wasn't obviously net bad that raises a lot of questions...

4lexande2mo- Is there any reason to think research that could lead to malaria vaccines is funding-constrained? There doesn't seem to be any shortage of in-mice studies, and in light of Eroom's Law the returns on marginal biomedical research investment seem low. - Malaria is preventable and curable with existing drugs, so vaccines for it only make sense if their cost (including required research) works out lower than preventing it in other ways, which means some strategies that made sense for something like Covid won't make sense here. - That's not how international waters works, you're still subject to the jurisdiction of the flag country and if they're okay with your trial you could do it more cheaply on land there. - If you attempt an end-run of the developed-country regulators with your trial they will just refuse to approve anything based on your trial data, which is why pharma companies don't jurisdiction-shop much at present. - That said developed country regulators do in fact approve challenge trials for malaria vaccines (as I noted) and vaccines for other curable diseases. Regulatory & IRB frameworks no doubt still add a bunch of overhead but this does further bound the potential benefits of attempting to work outside them. - I don't know what "focusing on epistemics" could possibly entail in terms of concrete interventions. Trying to develop prediction markets I suppose? I have updated away from the usefulness of those based on their performances over the past past year though, and it seems like they are more constrained by policy than by lack of marginal funding (at retail donor levels). - Policy change is still intractable. - In general there are lots of margins on which the world might be improved, but the vast majority of them are not plausibly bottlenecked on resources that I or most EAs I know personally control. Learning about a few more such margins is not a significant update. I focus on bednets not because I think it's unusually much more important than oth
Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home

It is off because if buying 100x what we need speeds up our vaccinations by one week we still got a fantastic deal, so you buy way way way too much of everything then donate or sell the rest to vaccinate the world be a hero and shut off or slow mutations and save lives.

We should have almost literally spared no expense.

Covid 2/25: Holding Pattern

I can test that hypothesis a bit more robustly but I think this requires the delays be longer than they previously were.

Grading myself on SSC's 2020 predictions

Congratulations for fully participating and posting, even if you kept your initial predictions private. What I'd most encourage now is what my post did: explaining your reasoning, especially where you posted different numbers than myself/Scott, and thinking about how good your logic was in each case and what you think your best prediction was given your knowledge at the time. 

also question 18 is missing here?

Covid 2/25: Holding Pattern

Did it myself, if I want a reimport I will say so explicitly.

Covid 2/25: Holding Pattern

Updated post to include a prediction for next week, which I forgot to do. Prediction was made at 9:10am eastern on Friday (so it involves seeing Thursday's numbers).

2habryka2moJust to check, do you want us to reimport, or did you do it yourself?
Covid 2/25: Holding Pattern

Nonzero helpful almost certainly, also almost certainly much less effective than glasses.

5Gerald Monroe2moIsn't the exposure route drainage ducts that feed into the nose and lungs? The cornea isn't living in itself, it has no cells for the virus to afflict. The contact is only covering the cornea, while glasses are acting as a "shadow shield" to reduce the number of droplets that hit the eyes. In light of this likely mechanism I would not assign "almost certainty nonzero helpful"
Judging Our April 2020 Covid-19 Predictions
  1. Russia's higher death toll might or might not be mostly Covid, but I figured its population wasn't high enough. Even if all of Russia gets it, they'd need a pretty high fatality rate to catch us given what was likely happening here. Brazil similarly I figured wouldn't document all that well and had a smaller pop. 

2. I still think that there's enough different ways this can fail that 30% is reasonable, and I dunno where the 29% comes from here? Presumably it would be higher than the 30% baseline for p(17|16), what am I missing? (And the way it resolves... (read more)

2Bucky2mo1. Yes, I agree Russia was unlikely to be above US for population reasons, I mentioned them more as an example of how bad under-reporting can be - I can't think of a way other than Covid to get 147k unaccounted for excess deaths but I could be missing something. I had concerns about this in all 3 of China, India and Brazil (although I guess there's the chance that we wouldn't get (accurate) excess deaths numbers anyway). 85% for 6 seems right but only dropping 5% for 17 seems low. * A commenter on Scott's post has made a case [] for India deaths being higher than US (enough to convince Scott it seems). 2. p(17|16) = p(17) / p(16) = 0.2 / 0.7 ~ 0.29 (as p(17|¬16) = 0) * Its possible / likely that I'm still missing how difficult it is to win a parlay but: 1. Given Covid is seen as seasonal by the end of the year, there was very likely some wave in Autumn - the main question is whether it meets the conditions set out in 17 2. At the time of prediction it seemed almost certain that we would get below the thresholds with the next month or two 3. I expected (but wasn't certain) that a second wave would take us back above one of those thresholds. 4. There remains the question of having a wave in the middle (Autumn wave is therefore not second wave). This was somewhere that my model was expecting a profile in the US more like what happened in the UK/Europe where cases/deaths were at a very low level for most of the Summer. This is a common thread in a few of my other predictions about US numbers - I generally underpredicted slightly but noticeably and this was a significant cause for that. So yeah, definitely an oversight from me in that regards.
Judging Our April 2020 Covid-19 Predictions
  1. Plausible that it was somewhat biased, and I would be happy to have others run the same poll with a different group to verify the result, but I do think it establishes that the result is at least ambiguous. 
  2. That's quite the nitpick. I like it. Technically, yes it did say 'second' and as I noted, parlays are really hard to win, but I didn't interpret the word second there as doing enough work, slash there's dispute over whether the middle wave counts as a wave. I think it's better to take my licks here.
The Prototypical Negotiation Game

The Shilling Point in NYC is, as I have always understood it, indeed the clock (aka the information booth) at Grand Central. It's a much, much better choice than the ESB, and also what I expect others to expect here. Epistemic Status is "This Is Known" and this extends to the degree that I will literally say "Meet at the Schilling Point" when I want to indicate that's where we are meeting, which is not that uncommon as it often makes a lot of sense, and the majority of the time no one asks where I meant by that.

(Yes, Penn Station's train times display and ... (read more)

2Raemon2moThis not the first time you've spelled "Schelling Point" "Schilling point" and I'm curious if that's some kind of on-purpose thing or just a misspelling you happen to do by accident a lot?
Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work

I had. Somehow I read it as someone who Vitalik motivated to do this, rather than Vitalik himself, presumably Vitalik doesn't care about 50k but it makes sense he'd care in theory anyway.

My takeaway was that there's a lot of things to be nervous about when betting even on an event that already happened, and that this was a pure supply-and-demand issue where people who knew the election outcome still had to overcome several risks and make it all worth doing, and you wouldn't do that in these ways for less than ~10-15% return minimum, and the other side had ... (read more)

Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work

That's not how I interpret it, because to me if Vitamin D works pre-hospitalization it could work on either mechanism - preventing infection or reducing severity. So that's another way it could be 'too late,' if it acts on an earlier stage. Are you thinking Scott is saying more like 45% to work if taken early because it's 25% to prevent infection and also 25% to reduce severity?

2PeterMcCluskey3moYes, Scott's first 25% appears to be only about preventing infection.
Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work

I remember reading it as the Gates Foundation doing a lot more than that, but it would fit with my look into Gates before if they only gave 4mm, at which point they don't get much credit here given their stated intentions. 

1MondSemmel3moIt should be counted as granting $154m, though, since the $150m grant was a grant to a third party that then went to the Serum Institute, too. Not that I understand why they did it that way, but I guess that can be chalked up to charity bureaucracy or something. Though if you mean to say that making grants in December 2020 don't have the same weight as they would've had half a year earlier, that's a point well-taken.
Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work

I don't. Now that we have more visibility, people who know more, please say more.

This would potentially explain the disagreement - if taking lots of D requires K2 but no one's testing with K2 then all the huge correlations would be there but the interventions wouldn't work. 

Why I Am Not in Charge

Corrected the wording to ensure it is definitely accurate. Speed premium among a lot of very strong claims that definitely happened and all that, but yeah, more careful would have been better.

Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work

The reason I use my own norms is mainly that I need to have unique rules about what politics is in/out of bounds, and in practice I've yet to strike down a post that isn't either obvious spam or way too political. Recent events likely moved me further towards free speech absolutism. 

As for rapid testing, there's a lot of argument over how accurate they are. At least some of their 'inaccuracy' is actually by design slash useful, coming back negative on the less infectious and thus potentially making the test more useful. There's clearly arguments about... (read more)

2benjaminikuta3moThanks. : )
Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work

Depends if you think the previous R0 calculations were based on getting the timing right, and how you think about what's acting on what. If this makes us update towards a much higher R0, then yes we are in more trouble rather than less trouble and it could end up here faster on net, whereas if we hold R0 as known then this slows things down.

1siclabomines3moYeah, if R0 is held constant and also COVID-UK is going up in absolute numbers.
Covid: CDC Issues New Guidance on Opening Schools

Vaccine supply will be ready for them the moment the studies are done, so this year seems realistic for getting children vaccinated. Chances seem very high the vaccines work on children, with the caveat that they aren't as needed, of course. 

It's months away but I see no reason we couldn't make a September deadline if that was something teachers needed in order to come back. 

1cistran3moThe FDA must actually say that children are ok to vaccinate, do you think they'll do that by September?
2TurnTrout3moOne thing I haven't seen worried about as much is: are children going to suffer from long COVID? After it became clear that children were basically safe from severe COVID, long COVID became my next concern. If I had children, I certainly wouldn't want them suffering e.g. long-term fatigue... But I don't recall reading much about this question in your posts. Without digging into the details right now, a quick Google returns Evidence that long COVID affects children [] : (I haven't checked this study's methodology, or done a broader lit review yet)
Covid: CDC Issues New Guidance on Opening Schools

Wow that's... really, really weird, cause I remember reading it the other way. I took out the related paragraphs, and will let the graphs speak for themselves.

Your Cheerful Price

Strongly disagree with this. The honest cheerful price is sometimes $0, and if that's true you should say $0, and presumably then do the thing given you were asked for your price. 

It's bad short term profit maximization but if you were purely doing short term profit maximization you never would have been inclined to bake the cake for free in the first place. 

3philh3moThis doesn't parse as disagreement - Eukaryote only said that asker should be willing to pay a nonzero amount, not that a nonzero payment should actually happen. So, according to my read of Eukaryote (and also according to me): * "My cheerful price is $0" / "great, will you do it for $0?" - fine. * "My cheerful price is $0.01" / "oh, hm, I don't actually want to pay a cent for it" - not cool. * "Honestly I'd have done it for free as a favor, but since you ask my cheerful price is $5" / "oh, okay, will you do it for free?" - not cool. * (Edited to add:) "Honestly I'd have done it for free as a favor, but since you ask my cheerful price is $5" / "hm, I don't want to pay $5, but will you do it for $2?" - fine.
Covid 2/11: As Expected

I actually think it's worth tracking: ConsensusBot should be a user, it should always update continuously to the public consensus prediction in its absence, and it shouldn't be counted as a prediction, so we can see what it looks like and how it scores. 

And there should be a contest to see if anyone can use a rule that looks only at predictions, and does better than ConsensusBot (e.g. by deciding whose predictions to care about more vs. less, or accounting for systematic bias, etc). 

Covid 2/11: As Expected

The dangers of quick writing and internet sarcasm are real, but I think that me and Dr. Ivers are in agreement here and the statement was meant to reflect that.

1kjz3moYes, I think we are all in agreement on the topic. On my first reading, seeing the isolated quote between the other two examples of poor vaccine responses made me think this was another example of a poor response, and the quote itself can be interpreted that way if read alone (i.e. We think only vaccinating 75-year-olds is the correct policy, and it's hard but necessary work to enforce it).
Covid 2/11: As Expected

Yes, that's complexity; see the SSC post that I linked to. You're right that I missed a letter.

5Daniel Tilkin3moHuh? Ctrl-f for "complex" only shows up in the comments. The title of the linked SSC post is "Kolmogorov Complicity And The Parable Of Lightning". It's not really related to Kolmogorov Complexity, except for a) being the same Kolmogorov, and b) being a pun on it.
Covid 2/11: As Expected

It does look like you are correct. My math from that still had it in the low-mid 40s rather than 55%, but that depends on details. If it's 55%, as I've noted before, that makes it too fast for us to stop in time unless things change fast. 

Covid 2/11: As Expected

If points could be converted to money enough to motivate real predictions, I would expect a flood of people who do nothing but information cascade to bank points, and it's not obvious what to do about that. As it is, it felt (to me) like there was a tension between 'score points' and 'make good predictions or at least don't make noise predictions' and that felt like a dealbreaker. 

5Davidmanheim3moI agree that actually offering money would require incentives to avoid, essentially, sybil attacks. But making sure people don't make "noise predictions" isn't a useful goal - those noise predictions don't really affect the overall metaculus prediction much, since it weights past accuracy.
Covid 2/11: As Expected

The wording here makes me worry we're Goodharting on quantity of predictions. And the best way to predict the community prediction is to (of course) wait for others to predict first, then match them...

4Davidmanheim3moIf the user is interested in getting into the top ranks, this strategy won't be anything like enough. And if not, but they want to maximize their score, the scoring system is still incentive compatible - they are better off reporting their true estimate on any given question. And for the worst (but still self-aware) predictors, this should be the metaculus prediction anyways - so they can still come away with a positive number of points, but not many. Anything much worse than that, yes, people could have negative overall scores - which, if they've predicted on a decent number of questions, is pretty strong evidence that they really suck at forecasting.
1siclabomines3moI think you get more points for earlier predictions.
Load More