To be fair, going to check the article in question, my main problem with it is that I find it hard to read and sort of disconnected, in a way that makes it difficult for me to even keep reading it and forming a full notion of what its thesis is to engage with it. Lots of “perhaps” that feel like branching points (am I supposed to assume you think this is true or not? Am I supposed to keep it in mind as a case of “we’ll go over both options”?), lots of disconnected facts presented in bullet point style before we start seeing a thread of synthesis of all these things into a coherent argument. I’d say it’s well possible that the downvoting is more about the problems with the article as an example of writing than with the specific views it expresses. To get at the views you need to make it through the article in the first place.
Nathan Young is a very strong trader on manifold markets. This is the ramblings of a mind that gets things right a lot. This isn’t the first time he’s been downvoted for high quality work before. I suspect editing is the problem here. I’ve noticed I often want to independently downvote readability vs semantics.
Also, I suspect that doing really well on a prediction market screws up your “learned decision theory”, for the usual self-referential-market reasons, which I tend to think are more pervasive than consensus seems to. relatedly, my impression is that prediction markets consistently get things wrong where those things are dangerous for people to make non-anonymous predictions about or non-anonymously make markets about.[1]
Those things make me suspect that someone who is very good at prediction markets is likely not using evidence about adversarial action very well, since winning at a market where there’s a lopsidedness in what questions get asked seems like it wouldn’t train some relevant things. I left some links in comments on nathan’s post but, well, my comments didn’t get upvoted,
anyway I reversed my small downvote to a large upvote of his post, and will likely not downvote similar posts in the future, thanks to this complaining. habryka, if you want more downvoting, can you explain why more downvoting is good even in the face of pushback like this?
hey nathan can u fix that pls using ur prediction market superpowers, I want to see prediction markets have a much higher ratio of “this terrible thing will happen by this amount during …” [answers: list of months] questions.
To be fair, going to check the article in question, my main problem with it is that I find it hard to read and sort of disconnected, in a way that makes it difficult for me to even keep reading it and forming a full notion of what its thesis is to engage with it. Lots of “perhaps” that feel like branching points (am I supposed to assume you think this is true or not? Am I supposed to keep it in mind as a case of “we’ll go over both options”?), lots of disconnected facts presented in bullet point style before we start seeing a thread of synthesis of all these things into a coherent argument. I’d say it’s well possible that the downvoting is more about the problems with the article as an example of writing than with the specific views it expresses. To get at the views you need to make it through the article in the first place.
Nathan Young is a very strong trader on manifold markets. This is the ramblings of a mind that gets things right a lot. This isn’t the first time he’s been downvoted for high quality work before. I suspect editing is the problem here. I’ve noticed I often want to independently downvote readability vs semantics.
Also, I suspect that doing really well on a prediction market screws up your “learned decision theory”, for the usual self-referential-market reasons, which I tend to think are more pervasive than consensus seems to. relatedly, my impression is that prediction markets consistently get things wrong where those things are dangerous for people to make non-anonymous predictions about or non-anonymously make markets about.[1]
Those things make me suspect that someone who is very good at prediction markets is likely not using evidence about adversarial action very well, since winning at a market where there’s a lopsidedness in what questions get asked seems like it wouldn’t train some relevant things. I left some links in comments on nathan’s post but, well, my comments didn’t get upvoted,
anyway I reversed my small downvote to a large upvote of his post, and will likely not downvote similar posts in the future, thanks to this complaining. habryka, if you want more downvoting, can you explain why more downvoting is good even in the face of pushback like this?
hey nathan can u fix that pls using ur prediction market superpowers, I want to see prediction markets have a much higher ratio of “this terrible thing will happen by this amount during …” [answers: list of months] questions.