It is difficult to know when a public figure is who they represent themselves to be. The market resolves positively if select Manifold users have a specialized marking to confirm their identity has been verified.
Clarification: Resolves on December 31, 2023 (see comments).
Nov 16, 12:17am: Will Manifold develop a user verification system for public figures by 2023? → Will Manifold develop a user verification system for public figures by 12/31/23?
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ161 | |
| 2 | Ṁ113 | |
| 3 | Ṁ32 | |
| 4 | Ṁ25 | |
| 5 | Ṁ14 |
People are also trading
Hmm. I think that Eliezer having the trustworthy-ish badge is implicitly saying "this is not someone else pretending to be Eliezer Yudkowsky". So I lean towards YES, but I'm not sure.
@Austin, if someone who is not Joe Biden chose the account name "Joe Biden", made a bunch of big markets and resolved them all correctly, would the fact that they chose a fake account name make you not want to give them the badge in a situation where you would otherwise do so?
@IsaacKing Well, if their real name was Joe Biden, just a different one than the US prez, I might choose to give them a verified badge.
But yes, to a first order approximation I would not verify someone who I believe is deceiving others about their identity.
@DavidChee Could you elaborate on the current checkmark and what it's for? I didn't see anything about it in the discord after a quick search.
@IsaacKing it's an identifier for who works at Manifold. This is related to a user verification system, it was just annoying to always have to be like: "FYI I work at Manifold".
I think we wanted to make it so hovering clarified what it meant but for some reason there was issues with that.
@DavidChee I don't think a blue check is the most intuitive marker for "employee of the site". Not sure what would be though.
@Labyran Looking at the close date it appears Carson meant "by the end of 2023", but I agree the title implies the beginning.
@IsaacKing I don't believe so. If a system is developed in December of 2023, wouldn't that be "by 2023" still?
@CarsonGale If I say "by 5:00", that refers to the beginning of that hour, not the end. "By Friday" is a little more ambiguous, but if someone asked me for something "by Friday" and provided no clarification I would certainly try to deliver it before Friday begins.
@IsaacKing at least in banking, when we state a deliverable time, we assume the cut-off time will be at the end of the period. I.e., I can tell someone "can you get this to me this week?" and the assumption is that delivering on Friday is still within the timing constraints. Same with - "by Friday" - I would assume it is ok to send at any point on Friday.
By 5:00 is different because that is a specific time. So if you delivered by 5:01, that is past the time period that was specifically requested.
@RobinFoster Would it be acceptable for me to clarify in the description? The issue is that I've structured basically all my markets this way and would prefer to keep the titles standardized.
@RobinFoster Thanks for the feedback. If that's a common perception, i don't want my markets to be misleading. Let me think on it.
@CarsonGale I thought it meant by jan 1st 2023 as well. I had to click in before betting. I think it’s a norm here to write by the end of.
@CarsonGale Sorry to do this to you, but I think the new titles are worse. Different parts of the world use different conventions for writing out dates, so these are still quite ambiguous.
(As someone who interfaces with both Americans and Europeans frequently, I never have any idea how to read dates written in that format and I always ask for spelled-out dates instead.)
@CarsonGale Also, ignoring the date formatting issue, you've just lowered the range of ambiguity from 1 year to 1 day. People still won't be sure whether this market closes at the beginning of that day or the end of it.
What I've done for my markets is say either "Will [thing] happen before [year]?" or "Will [thing] happen by the end of [year]?"