1,000
3.00@MichaelDickens If he seriously defrauds other people of real money just to make this resolve YES, that counts. If he just does something silly, that doesn't count.
@AlanaXiang Not reliable evidence. In the world where Eliezer is planning to do shenanigans, he is also buying no.
@EliezerYudkowsky Finally, someone who understands the correct way to use these markets.
@EliezerYudkowsky No, I won't count that. Market manipulation is par for the course around here.
I do think I might want a better resolution criterion for these sorts of markets than "fraud", as that's both too vague (includes stuff like your example) and too specific (excludes murder).
@IsaacKing Well, my betting was premised on that narrow fraud thing! If murder also counts you'd need a whole different market imo.
@EliezerYudkowsky Yeah, I'm thinking the intention behind these sorts of markets would be better fulfilled by something more like "Will Eliezer Yudkowsky be publicly condemned by a significant fraction of the rationalist and/or EA movement?"
@EliezerYudkowsky Either it was long enough ago that I don't know about it, or it was a small enough fraction that I wouldn't count it.
I could use "is convicted of a crime" as a more unambiguous criterion, but there are a lot of unethical things that aren't crimes, and I'd need to somehow separate out unproblematic crimes like parking violations.
I could use "Will I personally think Eliezer Yudkowsky did something strongly unethical", but that's likely too subjective for people to want to bet a lot.
@EliezerYudkowsky Hold on. Are you saying you wouldn't have bought a bunch of "No" if murder counts 🤔 😲
Ok, here's a place to talk about what the best types of scandal markets are:
https://manifold.markets/post/what-are-the-best-scandal-market-re
What counts as "fraud" for these markets?
If the statutory rape/blackmail is proved to be true [ Net Negative – Sinceriously ]and it is determined that Yudkowsky was involved, does this resolve yes?
(I think those things are true but I very much doubt anyone can establish them to 99% certainty or produce social consensus on them.)
@IsaacKing Not really. I just wondered if it was specifically about financial fraud or any sort of public criminal scandal would count.
@DavidBolin Let's go with financial fraud only, since that's what everyone is upset about right now.
@DavidBolin I'm willing to bet against most odd claims that ziz makes, and willing to bet against this claim in particular
@Sinclair I am not willing to bet because, as I said, I doubt it can ever be proven.
I still think it is true, though; years ago, when the guy (who supposedly end up blackmailing them) initially made the accusations, I thought there was around 70% chance he was telling the truth, and I explained why on Less Wrong (in a very heavily downvoted comment.) So I take Ziz's claims, coming out many years later, as evidence that my initial assessment was correct.
In case anybody reading this whole thread lacks context on general drama levels associated with Ziz/Sinceriously, it might be useful for them to know that Ziz is still alive, their earlier apparent "boating accident" having proven to be faked - presumably in order to get out of their ongoing court case - after they were found at the scene of a crime at the machete stabbing of a landlord by their fellow coven members. Wish I was joking here, but I'm not. https://twitter.com/jessi_cata/status/1593783526859603970
@EliezerYudkowsky While context that provides more information about a person's character is certainly useful, I think if your goal is to convince traders that Ziz's claims should not be trusted, it would be even better to link to an object-level response to their claims, if you've previously written one up.