Good Tweet or Bad Tweet? Which controversial posts will Manifold think are a "Good Take" this week?
Jul 20
Naval: "The US isn’t a failed European country, it’s a working Latin American country. If it fails, it‘ll look more like Mexico than Scandinavia."
Visa: "the Some Asshole initiative" (illustration, see tweet for context)
Panfilo: [Better for leftists to be culture war AI stoppists than culture war AI utopians]
Francois Chollet: LLMs bypass the need for intelligence by leveraging memorization instead. The ARC benchmark shows that they aren't on the path to AGI.

You can help us in resolving options by spending at least 1 mana on each tweet you have an opinion on. Buy YES if you think it's a good take and NO if you think it's a bad take.

Many markets come in the form of "is this tweet a good take?" so I thought we'd try just doing the most direct possible version of that.

You can submit any "hot take" tweet, as well as a quote from the tweet or a neutral summary of the take.The tweet can be from any time, but I think more recent hot takes would be better.

I may N/A options for quality control, or edit them to provide a more neutral summary.

As a trader, you should buy any amount of YES in tweets you think are Good Takes, buy any amount of NO in tweets you think are Bad Takes. I will leave the definition of those terms up to you. The amount of shares doesn't matter for the resolution, one share of yes is one vote and one hundred shares of yes is also one vote.

If I think you are voting purely as a troll, such as buying no in every option, I may block you or disregard your votes. Please vote in good faith! But hey, I can't read your mind. Ultimately this market is on the honor system.

Note that market prices will be a bit strange here, because this is simultaneously a market and a poll. If you sell your shares, you are also removing your vote.

The market will close every Saturday at Noon Pacific. I will then check the positions tab on options that have been submitted.

If there is a clear majority of YES holders, the option resolves YES. If there is a clear majority of NO holders, the option resolves NO. If it's very close and votes are still coming in, the option will remain un-resolved. The market will then re-open for new submissions, with a new close date the next week. This continues as long as I think the market is worth running. It does not matter what % the market is at, and bots holding a position are also counted. In a tie, the tweet will not resolve that week.

I may update these exact criteria to better match the spirit of the question if anyone has any good suggestions, so please leave a comment if you do.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:
Visa: "the Some Asshole initiative" (illustration, see tweet for context)

thank you

It would be great to hear constructive feedback on why people think this is a 'bad take'.

It's not really a 'take' as much as it is a proposal for what someone else should be doing, using a cheap gimmick to get attention.

If this is what you think needs to happen, then work on making it yourself.

Ok, thanks.

Do you have an opinion on the content of the recommendation itself?

It seems like a good thing for someone to try, though it seems underspecified.

> Imagine a global network where every individual can propose, evaluate, and wager on propositions. Where the aggregated wisdom and values of humanity form the basis for AI alignment.

Like, what mechanism will do this? Or to start more simply, what mechanism would allow individuals in a household to do this with propositions? What about with the addition of someone with strongly opposing goals? Or someone who is duplicitous? I don't think it would have to be robust to a majority of bad faith actors, but I think it would have to be robust up to about 10% of the population being bad actors. If you have an idea for mechanism, then make a toy example demonstrating it can work at all in these easy cases.

Or if you don't have a mechanism in mind, how will you find and develop one? (I would start by looking at these:

Or if you really think a specific group of people should change what they're doing, you should have a compelling reason why they are well suited to the task in particular? It looks like Eliezer/MIRI has pivoted from AI Alignment research to trying to stop the development of AGI outright, so it seems unlikely he/they would be interested. I'm sure there are others interested in consensus mechanisms as they relate to carrying us to the far future that you could find that you could potentially promote or work with.

All of the above, it also has that standard crypto enthusiast "crypto will solve civilization scale systems, so what it doesn't address any core problem and increases costs drastically because it has to" approach that seems wholly detached from reality

This is great feedback. Very similar to the feedback that I've got from dozens of others since 2010. It is underspecified because the particular algorithm is infohazardous.

The general mechanism is a constitution. The best work to review to get a general idea of what I'm doing is the work between Anthropic and the Collective Intelligence Project.

They are using constitutions to align AI.

They are using collective deliberation systems to align constitutions.

My work was in symbolic AI. Similar to the work of Doug Lenat and Danny Hillis.

I used constitutions.

The people I am trying to reach are the philosophers of control theory.

I'm trying to convince them that there is a fundamental difference between two specific functions. It's about proposition recommendation instead of token recommendation.

If you want to understand how this will feel to normal people, it will feel like this.

Twitter is converted into a system that is instead a feed of propositions. Instead of liking or re-posting, you accept or deny them. You can earn crypto by doing this. The reason we do it (1) to create the normative data needed to align AI (2) to educate individuals.

I know that this isn't going to immediately appear like an important function.

If I were instead claiming in 2005 that we just need to get better and autocomplete, everyone would have thought I was crazy.

I've got many hours of video content on X if you want to learn more.

@shankypanky I'm curious to hear your case for voting YES on this.

@TimothyJohnson5c16 sadly I lost my zeal for discourse in this market a while back so hadn't chimed in earlier - looks like plenty of input from other yes bettors now though

bought Ṁ1 Answer #zy3c42mmbu YES

I've always found it so extremely obvious that Taylor Swift is a conservative, but her fandom doesn't seem to believe that at all.

Because she's definitely not? She doesn't talk about politics often, but the one time she did, it was to oppose a Republican Senator.


@PlasmaBallin You can be conservative and opposed to Republicans ... quite famously, that's the whole reason Biden won in 2020 and Democrats did well in 2022 ... I'm mostly referring to the private jet thing, and being a country singer in the 00s isn't a good sign either... I kind of get the feeling she's an average rich person in her political views

Most rich Democrats use private jets, so I don't think that proves anything.

She might have been conservative 15 years ago, but I think she was more just apolitical. By her own description, it was a wake-up call when Trump was elected.

Her explicit political stances are mostly pro-choice, pro-LGBT, and pro-feminist. None of those seem conservative to me.

the idea that someone's political ideology could be determined by the type of music they were known for when they were 17 seems like a pretty big reach (never mind that assuming anyone's political stance based on who they were as a teenager is flawed to begin with)
you seem very invested in this idea of her use of private jets specifically as some indicator of her as a person, her values, her politics, etc. which I find curious
I agree you can be conservative and opposed to Republicans as values and political affiliation can and should be separated imo. still, as timothy pointed out, her social politics are pretty undeniably left of center, even if we were to find that she's more on the right when it comes to things like fiscal policy (she's wealthy and grew up in a wealthy family, so that wouldn't be particularly surprising).

Panfilo: [Better for leftists to be culture war AI stoppists than culture war AI utopians]
bought Ṁ2 Panfilo: [Better for... YES

What are the arguments against this one?

@shankypanky Tfw you lose mana because based on the misleading preview text you mistakenly think this is referring to the original version ( 😞

it literally says "read for full context" so I can't see how it could be considered misleading at all

Isaac so based for that take we live and die rip my 86 mana you won't be missed

It's a good take though, maybe not correct but good nonetheless, the appearance of propriety often costs actual efficiency and that's a problem, is it a problem here? ehh

@shankypanky I'm curious to hear your case for voting YES on this.

Both Tate and Swift promote the destruction of the sanctity of marriage and traditional family values in the same way. One does it through woke feminism and the other through appealing to men who have lost God without direction in their lives and tricking them. It's all part of the same globalist shit, it's all anathema

Aren't egalitarian feminism and reactionary misogyny polar opposites?

Both serve the same ends of degrading the sanctity of marriage and how men and women should interact with each other. It's like Communism and economic Darwinism: two sides of the same coin

Is Taylor swift especially woke or feminist? I don't follow her much but my impression is that she's one of the better pop culture people about staying out of culture war issues.

She used to avoid culture war issues, but she's taken a pretty firm feminist stance in the last few years, in both her music and her statements.

I was initially very skeptical of this, but I'm starting to come around. Based on how they would describe themselves, Taylor believes in empowering women, and Tate believes in empowering men.

@stardust how exactly do you believe men and women should interact with each other, besides "sanctity of marriage"?

@TheAllMemeingEye As laid out in the Bible. Men and women are not to have premarital sex, for instance. I disagree with women politicians. Men are not to degrade women with this over-sexualization you see in the internet era

I also think it's worth noting that both Swift and Tate have ultimately well-meaning but misinformed worldviews - Swift's famous for her ridiculously over the top private jet use, for example, and though that's not nearly as bad as Tate's misogyny it is STILL pretty bad.

"Well-meaning" is the last word I would use to describe Tate's worldview.

I find Swift and Tate around equally objectionable

I disagree with women politicians

@stardust Wait, do you mean disagree with their views or their appointment to office?

Both, but mostly the latter.

Is that purely because of the old testament bible passage about no female priests?

@TheAllMemeingEye the Church does not ordain female priests; I fail to see why government should be any different.