Do prediction markets make the things they predict go better? Worse? Add variance? Reduce variance? How do we know?
For that matter, does more people being good at prediction make things go better overall? If so, under what circumstances? I expect there’s a wide variety of circumstances where it helps. what are they?
What hypotheses do we have for what-has-to-go-right-at-once in order that making-a-person-more-able-to-win-at-prediction-markets to result in the actual increase of actual probability of good long-term trajectories for the things humans and their friends cared about, such as there continuing to be more humans, and a cosmopolitan moral outcome?
The path from “make this prediction system more powerful” to “and then things go well” needs very strong heuristic arguments I haven’t seen in discussions on prediction markets—I currently think any argument that improved prediction implies improved outcomes needs to show why the improved prediction produces an asymmetric effect towards integrating the longest-term preferences of the humans involved, rather than, eg, being an asymmetric short-term boost for whichever have the most short-term need for information about their moves on the short-term game board without regard to whether their short-term play even optimizes for their own long term outcomes.
Do prediction markets make the things they predict go better? Worse? Add variance? Reduce variance? How do we know?
For that matter, does more people being good at prediction make things go better overall? If so, under what circumstances? I expect there’s a wide variety of circumstances where it helps. what are they?
What hypotheses do we have for what-has-to-go-right-at-once in order that making-a-person-more-able-to-win-at-prediction-markets to result in the actual increase of actual probability of good long-term trajectories for the things humans and their friends cared about, such as there continuing to be more humans, and a cosmopolitan moral outcome?
The path from “make this prediction system more powerful” to “and then things go well” needs very strong heuristic arguments I haven’t seen in discussions on prediction markets—I currently think any argument that improved prediction implies improved outcomes needs to show why the improved prediction produces an asymmetric effect towards integrating the longest-term preferences of the humans involved, rather than, eg, being an asymmetric short-term boost for whichever have the most short-term need for information about their moves on the short-term game board without regard to whether their short-term play even optimizes for their own long term outcomes.