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.
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.