Haha, this actually seems normal and fine. We who work on prediction markets, understand the nuances and implementation of these markets (what it means in mathematical terms when a market says 25%). And Kevin and Casey haven’t quite gotten it yet, based on a couple of days of talking to prediction markets enthusiasts.
But that’s okay! Ideas are actually super hard to understand by explanation, and much easier to understand by experience (aka trial and error). My sense is that if Kevin follows up and bets on a few other markets, he’d start to wonder “hm, why did I get M100 for winning this market but only M50 on that one?” and then learn that the odds at which you place the bet actually matter. This principle underpins the idea of Manifold—you can argue all day about whether prediction markets are good for X or Y, or… you can try using them with play money and find out.
It’s reasonable for their reporting to be vibes-based for now—so long as they are reasonably accurate in characterizing the vibes, it sets the stage for other people to explore Manifold or other prediction markets.
Never mind bettors—part of my project for improving the world is, I want people like Casey to look at a prediction market and be like, “Oh, a prediction market. I take this probability seriously, because if it was obviously wrong, someone could come in and make money by fixing it, and then it would be right.” If he doesn’t understand that line of argument, then indeed, why is Casey ever going to take the probability any more seriously than a Twitter poll?
I feel like right now he might have the vibe of that argument, even if he doesn’t actually understand it? But I think you have to really comprehend the argument before you will take the prediction market more seriously than your own uninformed feeling about the topic, or your colleague’s opinion, or one research paper you skimmed.
Haha, this actually seems normal and fine. We who work on prediction markets, understand the nuances and implementation of these markets (what it means in mathematical terms when a market says 25%). And Kevin and Casey haven’t quite gotten it yet, based on a couple of days of talking to prediction markets enthusiasts.
But that’s okay! Ideas are actually super hard to understand by explanation, and much easier to understand by experience (aka trial and error). My sense is that if Kevin follows up and bets on a few other markets, he’d start to wonder “hm, why did I get M100 for winning this market but only M50 on that one?” and then learn that the odds at which you place the bet actually matter. This principle underpins the idea of Manifold—you can argue all day about whether prediction markets are good for X or Y, or… you can try using them with play money and find out.
It’s reasonable for their reporting to be vibes-based for now—so long as they are reasonably accurate in characterizing the vibes, it sets the stage for other people to explore Manifold or other prediction markets.
Never mind bettors—part of my project for improving the world is, I want people like Casey to look at a prediction market and be like, “Oh, a prediction market. I take this probability seriously, because if it was obviously wrong, someone could come in and make money by fixing it, and then it would be right.” If he doesn’t understand that line of argument, then indeed, why is Casey ever going to take the probability any more seriously than a Twitter poll?
I feel like right now he might have the vibe of that argument, even if he doesn’t actually understand it? But I think you have to really comprehend the argument before you will take the prediction market more seriously than your own uninformed feeling about the topic, or your colleague’s opinion, or one research paper you skimmed.