The AI risk letter market is behaving very strangely, leading some to suspect that fishy business is afoot. It was made by a new creator who hasn't made any other markets, and delisted it for unknown reasons. The creator hasn't been participating in the discussion in the comments, and some comments were hidden for unknown reasons. But what really makes people think that something weird is going on is the trading activity. The graph of the probability is unusual to say the least, and multiple traders have invested ridiculous amounts on YES despite the event in question seeming very unlikely. On top of that, the market seems wildly miscalibrated.
This market will resolve YES if I learn of something that I deem to be fishy business before it closes (this market, not the AI letter market). Examples would include:
The creator intends to misresolve the market.
The creator is secretly using a bizarre, misleading, or non-common-sensical interpretation of the resolution criteria (e.g., saying that a letter that released long before the referenced letter counts, or resolving based on a letter that hasn't been released to the public yet).
There is some ulterior purpose for the market's existence (beyond being genuinely predictive, raising awareness about AI risk, or similar non-fishy motives).
Some of the major traders have ulterior motives for their trades, beyond the obvious "non-fishy" motives (e.g. trying to trick people into thinking they have inside knowledge, trying to manipulate another market ).
The creator re-lists the market last minute to cause a big shake-up in Leagues.
Large-scale collusion among traders to manipulate the market's mechanics in some way.
Large-scale alt activity
The whole thing was a social experiment.
Someone makes a serious attempt to manipulate the outcome.
Examples of non-fishy business:
Someone genuinely has inside knowledge.
People got fooled into thinking someone had inside knowledge by a positive feedback loop that no one intended.
Someone makes a meta-market on the AI letter market, and someone tries to manipulate it in an obvious way that any trader can figure out.
Related questions
@Akzzz123 y he duckin? was going to let it slide for an n/a, but this was days ago. cuz this is really a no resolve.
@Akzzz123 I can't re-resolve it myself. I pinged @DavidChee before but maybe he didn't notice. I'll put it in the please resolve channel on the discord.
@MichaelMyers It's unambiguously not a NO, at least not yet, because it hasn't reached the original close date (I believe it was set to close a week after it opened). So even if I completely agreed that there was no fishy business I know of yet and wanted to give it a definite resolution, I would have to reopen it and wait for a few days before it became a NO. There are plenty of other possibilities for fishy business, like what's mentioned in @PseudonymousAlt's comments below, that could potentially lead to entirely different grounds for a YES resolution (though I won't be considering them at this point - I don't want to flip-flop after promising to re-resolve this to N/A).
Also, it's worth noting that the criteria for a YES resolution was "I learn of something that I deem to be fishy business," which did happen. I'm re-resolving it to N/A because I was not clear enough about what I would deem fishy business, which led to traders being misled.
@TheWiggleMan even a N/A seems bizzare! just the creator listing didn't happen, all these above also did.
I think one of the issues is that, from the jump you've already taken the framing that something fishy is occurring, so you have this lens that everything is now weird and you're trying to make something fit. Even though, it's clear they had the insider information, your building up actions and things as if they had something more behind it. You're trying to shoe horn fishy business into it. it's not there.
Accepting the framing that something fishy or weird is already too far gone. it's making you think something else is happening (other than the obvious insider knowledge).
this should not resolve as N/A, or Yes. this clearly resolves no.
OK, it seems like most people disagree with how I resolved this. The disagreements are reasonable and a lot more widespread than any previous controversial market I've had.
I was going to hold a poll on whether people agree with the resolution and re-resolve to N/A if at least 25% disagreed, but based on the extent of the disagreement, that is probably a waste of time because there would definitely be more than 25% disagreement. So I am just going to ask @DavidChee to resolve it to N/A.
@JosephNoonan If you resolved YES based on thinking that the market creator reslisted the market for league profit purposes and it turned out not to be the case (judging by SirSalty's comment), then this should resolve NO instead of N/A as long as there have been no other fishy things in your judgement.
@NamesAreHard I think Joseph wants a N/A re-resolution because when he resolved YES, evidence pointed to fishy business, and he bet 10K mana to get a tiny profit before resolving.
Obviously a NO resolution will hurt him a lot. Remember that markets can be resolved by the creator to the best of their judgement, and manifold will not step in even if that is incorrect judgement acc to manifold. In this case, not only has Joseph agreed that his judgement was flawed, he has also asked to remove his and others profits and losses from this market by asking admins to re-resolve to N/A.
The admins or Joseph do not have a responsibility to take this to a NO resolution. And in case that's not enough, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence such as @Mira's comment below, which suggests there there was a lot of fishy business afoot in the midst of non-fishy business, but nothing conclusive has so far emerged, and I agree with @JosephNoonan for a N/A.
@TheWiggleMan Joseph made the judgement call according to available evidence. Perhaps that was hasty. I think it was, but it was his judgement call, and he, responsibly, has agreed to remove his profits and other's losses. No harm done.
@TheWiggleMan The market resolutions should reflect what actually happened, though, not what the best guess was based on the available evidence when the market was resolved. We all make assumptions that something has clearly happened and sometimes we turn out to be wrong, so we pay for it. I don't see why being the market creator is supposed to protect you from that.
@NamesAreHard community guidelines say it is still upto Joseph's judgement whether he wants to change the resolution. The default change is to N/A unless he supports NO. I am just pointing out that the default re resolution to N/A is fine, so that he isn't peer pressured
@TheWiggleMan By going in this with the assumption that there is something fishy going on, you're on a hunt for something doesn't exist. There's a big difference between something that looks and/or has the appearance of looking fishy and then there's actually being fishy. Joseph's put together a list of what would constitute as being fishy. He's also defined what is not fishy. The appearance of looking fishy is not the same as being fishy. What we know for sure, 100%, is that they had knowledge that the document was slated to come out. Trying to construct this grand narrative while ignoring the actual reasons.
Obviously, it's his judgement on it, but if he wants to resolve this correctly, he shouldn't resolve as N/a or as Yes. It's a No.
t
@TheWiggleMan Realize he defined what is fishy and what isn't fishy in the description. Even going off of that, it resolves no. You can say that there were 99 things that look fishy. But that is NOT the same as 99 things that ARE fishy. there's a difference. It can look like it, but it isnt it.
Just read over the description of what he defines as fishy.
@MichaelMyers There was a Large-scale collusion among traders to manipulate the market's mechanics in some way. The whole thing was a social experiment. The creator re-lists the market last minute. Some of the major traders have ulterior motives for their trades, beyond the obvious "non-fishy" motives.
all these are enough to be yes. proof needed? Let me know @JosephNoonan , if you're inclined to re-resolve to NO. If you're going for N/A, don't bother
@TheWiggleMan Once you know for sure that they have insider knowledge, then you can no longer attribute the large scale collusion to being fishy.
As a group, they are sharing this inside knowledge with each other, they are basically large scale colluding and trying to manipulate. So those can't count towards being fishy, when the example of non-fishy is having insider knowledge. Insider knowledge in this situation is collusion and manipulation.
@MichaelMyers look. do whatever. You said it earlier, he knows, it was an incorrect resolution,. You also said that he's would prefer the n/a resolution cuz he doesn't want to lose mana. I get it. Some people are motivated to do the correct thing, some are just motivated by mana. Who cares though right?