I can think of dozens of other types of markets that Manifold would be more likely to ban than x-risk markets - they aren't anywhere near the top of the list. Self-resolving markets, for example.

And also, should manifold ban questions on Manifold itself, given that they can't properly pay out if Manifold shuts down?

@jack E.g. "What number am I thinking of?" "How many grams will I lose in my next trip to the bathroom?" "Am I a bad person?" "Manifold is stupid" -- Yes, please ban all of those first. he x-risk markets are interesting, at least.

One good way to patch x-risk markets: change them from "all humans die because of X" to "10+% of humans die because of X in under three months." If something can knock out 10+% of humanity in less than three months, it's an x-risk. But there will still be humans around to adjudicate the claim, so the game theory won't make the YES tickets shoot to 0%.

@FubbiQuantz Here goes:

https://manifold.markets/FubbiQuantz/before-2030-ai-causes-death-of-more

Before 2030 AI causes death of more than 5% of humans in less than a 3 month period.

8% chance. It is what it sounds like. I don’t need to be picky about adjudication criteria. We’ll know it if we see it. (God forbid.) This is a fix for the x-risk shortcoming in these markets. If the claim only resolves as YES if all the humans are dead, then there may not be anyone around to settl…

@FubbiQuantz

"10+% of humans die because of X in under three months."

Already done (although with 5 years instead of 3 months):

However, the forecasts on 10% of humans dead vs 100% are very different. For example, nuclear and AI are similarly likely to kill 10% of humans, but nuclear is extremely unlikely to kill 100% of humans while AI is still quite likely: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/2568/ragnar%25C3%25B6k-seriesresults-so-far/

Will a global catastrophe kill at least 10% of humans before 2100, and what will be the cause?

If the human population decreases by at least 10% in any period of 5 or fewer consecutive calendar years, which we will define here as a “global catastrophe”, resolves to the principal cause. Otherwise, resolves to “no global catastrophe”. See https://www.metaculus.com/questions/1493/global-populat…

@FubbiQuantz Your theory that game theory will make the value of YES shares shoot to zero does not correctly predict what actually happens on these markets. Perhaps there is some factor it is not accounting for?

I’d be in favor