This works as a means of publicly demonstrating a credence (in doom), but exists in tension with the original prediction market serving as a credence aggregator (about the passing of data centers.)
(Let’s say there are many such bets whose payoffability correlates, to varying degrees, with doom. Is there a way to collectively abstract from them a “true” crowd-level credence in doom and “true” crowd-level credences in e.g. data center moratoria? I’m not deep enough in this world to say. Perhaps if you believe prediction markets are otherwise highly efficient at capturing best available credence and, as doom-correlated bets pay off, you track just how systematically “biased” the market was betting in one direction.)
I agree– from the perspective of trying to maximize profit from this bet, you’d want the market to not factor in the conditional P(doom¦moratorium passes).
This works as a means of publicly demonstrating a credence (in doom), but exists in tension with the original prediction market serving as a credence aggregator (about the passing of data centers.)
(Let’s say there are many such bets whose payoffability correlates, to varying degrees, with doom. Is there a way to collectively abstract from them a “true” crowd-level credence in doom and “true” crowd-level credences in e.g. data center moratoria? I’m not deep enough in this world to say. Perhaps if you believe prediction markets are otherwise highly efficient at capturing best available credence and, as doom-correlated bets pay off, you track just how systematically “biased” the market was betting in one direction.)
I agree– from the perspective of trying to maximize profit from this bet, you’d want the market to not factor in the conditional P(doom¦moratorium passes).