Great market 🤑. Will be looking to create my own like it!

This can be the first 😬

https://manifold.markets/EliezerYudkowsky/will-artificial-superintelligence-e

Will artificial superintelligence exist by 2030? [resolves N/A in 2027]

47% chance. Will continuing progress in AI capabilities result in the existence of unambiguous artificial superintelligence, clearly superior to humans and humanity at virtually every cognitive problem, by Jan 1st 2030? (Every problem on which it's possible to do better than humanity at all, eg, not Tic-Tac-Toe or inverting hashes.) An artificial superintelligence like this would, according to some market participants' beliefs, probably kill everyone. This creates a market distortion because M$ is not worth anything if the world ends. Pleading with people to just bet their beliefs on this important question doesn't seem like the best possible solution. This market resolves N/A on Jan 1st, 2027. All trades on this market will be rolled back on Jan 1st, 2027. However, up until that point, any profit or loss you make on this market will be reflected in your current wealth; which means that purely profit-interested traders can make temporary profits on this market, and use them to fund other permanent bets that may be profitable; via correctly anticipating future shifts in prices among people who do bet their beliefs on this important question, buying low from them and selling high to them. For more on this see the paired question, https://manifold.markets/EliezerYudkowsky/will-ai-wipe-out-humanity-by-2030-r [link preview]

Do we have faith that AI will resolve this correctly after our demise? Is there a chance AI resolves this market prematurely to hasten our demise?

Resolves YES

We're ignoring invisible numbers after the decimal, right?

@deagol I just took the 11% limit order guy's limit orders in another market and now his balance must be less than 6k. So some those 11% limit orders are going to be cancelled atm

(His balance currently shows 12k but should update in a few minutes)

@firstuserhere 73612 wall break rn

@deagol Now down to 65,799.

@evergreenemily 51,524 now.

@LukeHanks 46,232 now.

@LukeHanks 13,482

@deagol holy hell

We've started eating the 11% wall on the linked market 👀.

Everyone's mana is tied up in floaty rock markets.

Does anyone have insight on what @Jelle is doing here? They are most of the NO here and also are most of the wall at 11% (42k) that this market refers to.

Seems fairly clear then? They're one of the people who for questionable reasons try to bid up the AI doom markets, and they have enough faith in their limit orders to bet NO here.

@jskf What are these questionable reasons? I mean I’m literally “questioning the reasons” 😅. I would understand having a higher personal p(doom) but I’m not sure why you’d also bet the rest of the p(doom) market will agree with you, especially when you are personally most of the reason that market isn’t already at 10%. So maybe I’m missing something here.

Oh, since you were asking here I thought your question was mostly about the bet here. I think some of the possible questionable reasons for betting up doom markets are:

1. A belief that "betting your true beliefs" is honorable.

2. Failing to understand that if you're right you don't actually win. This one seems very unlikely, though.

3. Trolling people who expect doom markets will go down because the incentives point in that direction. "The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain active on Manifold" (or at least longer than you're willing to lock up your mana).

4. Expectation that people like Catnee will bet the market up even further.

5. Hope that if the market is high, people will take AI risk more seriously (lmao).

@jskf @alextes not sure if that analysis holds given @Jelle is actually holding pretty significant NO positions in many AI doom markets, including 3.7k in the 2030 one, at a cost of 21%. Also, their balance can’t cover those 11% limits. I suspect the bet here was a miscalculation or hedge gone bad.

@alextes While the linked market was at ~20% there was an arbitrage of buying NO on the linked market, setting a limit YES order at 11% on the linked market, and betting NO here. Then you win on the linked market if it goes to 10% and you win here if it doesn't. It's pretty easy to miscalculate such bets, but they can work.

@MartinRandall that makes sense, thanks.

It’s quite underpriced now relative to the N/A one

Who wants to go bet Ṁ264597 on NO?

@JosephNoonan @JonathanRay has the power

Down to 12% now!

@DylanSlagh What do you mean with "reaches 10%"? From the top or from the bottom? Or exactly 10%?

@CertaintyOfVictory If the displayed value of that market is ever at or below 10% after the creation of this market, this market resolves YES