Wanted: has anyone on LessWrong said they moved money off an exchange, after seeing my markets? I made a meta-market asking if literally anyone would be influenced to move money off any exchange mentioned in any of my crypto-related markets.

If you've been influenced by any of my markets on the relative exchange risks, please let me know so I can reward predictors.

The curve of AI death

Motivation

On Manifold, you'll see lots of markets like "Will AI wipe out humanity by 2040?".  These prices aren't very informative, and they trade more like opinion polls.  The anthropic bias ruins it, because YES holders can't win mana without being dead.  Though even for NO holders, the timeframe and opportunity cost make it unappealing (we can get higher annualized returns elsewhere).  I can't do much about that obstacle yet.

But I wanted to try capturing AI risk from a more falsifiable angle.

A strong prior:

not that realistically we had any control over SBF's actions or identity as an EA

Agree little could be done then.  But since then, I've noticed the community has an attitude of "Well I'll just keep an eye out next time" or "I'll be less trusting next time" or something.  This is inadequate, we can do better.

I'm offering decision markets that will make it harder for frauds to go unnoticed, prioritizing crypto (still experimenting with criteria).  But when I show EAs these, I'm kind of stunned by the lack of interest.  As if their persona... (read more)

Part of your decision of "should I go on semaglutide/Wegovy/Ozempic?" would be influenced by whether it improves lifespan.  Weight loss is generally good for that, but here's a decision market specifically about lifespan.

Since I've been getting downvoted for what have felt like genuine attempts to create less-corruptible information, please try to keep an open mind or explain why you downvote.

In 2022, Peter Zeihan predicted that over the next decade, 1 billion people would probably die from famine.

No, probably not.

EDIT: I see that my approach won't avoid downvotes even as a shortform.  I think that's very unfortunate.  Consider the message received.

Short forms it is! Thank you.

Also, I probably assume more readers accept the framework than they do.  That prediction markets are worth using, that a market's accuracy rises in a vaguely lognormal way with trading activity, and a random reader usually can't beat it unless the market has few traders.  I could try including a link to Scott Alexander making similar points for me.

You're probably right that a more directly relevant criterion could be tried.  So here is a prototype series, starting with the 3 biggest exchanges.

Ah, I didn't even notice that clickbait aspect of the title, I'm so used to thinking of "whistleblower markets" as a thing.  I've edited the title to just say Manifold market.

Thank you for the response.  I actually do have a whole series where some comparisons could be made between crypto enterprises.  You're right that a single is less informative.  In the future, I'll assume I probably won't have the energy to write up a detailed comparison, and just won't bother trying to communicate my markets on LessWrong.  Not meant to sound ... (read more)

Thank you for describing this.  My reaction in point form:

-I can understand that general prior against financial advice.  After FTX, I had assumed many people here would want to know about such a high risk with the largest crypto exchange.  I can certainly skip posting about such risk outliers here in the future.

-I'm not sure "not scholarly enough" is generally that predictive.  I've seen many posts with many upvotes that didn't seem very scholarly.  I understand the site is trying to maintain more scholarly habits though.  If... (read more)

I see the first 2 votes were downvotes.  Consider me interested in understanding.