🏅 Top traders

Update 2024-Jan-08:

No response from Brockman. So we fall back to the Keynesian Beauty Contest. Starting now, I will wait until the price stabilizes for 5+ days at <=10% (resolves "No"), OR spending 5+ days at >=90% (resolves "Yes").

But if Brockman replies and agrees with me, then the KBC would be cancelled and we'd switch back to resolving based on the agreement.

@ScroogeMcDuck Ready to resolve?

@Hedgehog Ah yes, thank you for the reminder. It has been >5 days >90%, resolving YES.

Update 2024-Jan-03:
Yesterday I asked Brockman if he still endorses calling 2022 a "sleepy" year. However impressive 2023 was, it's misleading amnesia to call 2022 "sleepy".

But does Brockman still endorse it? We'll wait to see if he agrees. If he doesn't reply by Jan-7, then we convert this to the Keynesian Beauty Contest rules, as a fallback. We'd also use those KBC rules if he does reply but disagrees with me (and still endorses the "sleepy" wording).

It's a statement designed to confuse rather than clarify - it's a statement that can't even be wrong because it's so metaphorical - but, it's also a statement that is more approachable / viral to the vast majority of people in the world than a lot of the more technical stuff that is out there trying to figure out more clearly where things will go. I'm trying to put together markets that are much more 3-rd party verifiable but likely a much smaller segment of folks are interested in these:

@PatrickDelaney crap, here is the other one:

@PatrickDelaney These markets are just as clearly defined as this one. The only difference is this one is about the popularity of AI where as yours are about the technical abilities.

@ZZZZZZ This market is about advancement too, and it's very subjective, and bets reflect users' opinions rather weakly.

@na_pewno

Ah, I only really read the adoption side of it.

"2023 will make 2022 look like a sleepy year for AI advancement & adoption".

That said, it is just two requirements instead of one which is will AI advance faster and also be adopted faster than it was in 2022. So, those markets are more well defined I will give you that since this market combines two different things into one.

@ZZZZZZ I would counter that to clarify more, there needs to be some third party validation metric, such as Google trends. Unless I'm misreading the above...?

@ZZZZZZ I think it's OK to pose a question, and then set a metric as a proxy, even if the metric doesn't completely mirror the posed question. My philosophy is to try to stray away from personal opinion. Of course the metrics we pick themselves are always injecting personal opinion, so you have to have it somewhere, but at least making an effort to have a third-party verifiable objective seems to make the playing field more even in a lot of cases...? I don't know, what do you think?

@PatrickDelaney Yeah, I think setting rough metrics is a good idea to avoid ambiguity in how it will resolve but there's also something to be said for not including metrics so you're just predicting the thing itself rather than worrying about the oddities or technicalities involved with the metrics.

@ZZZZZZ I would say it's less of an empirical prediction then, and more political arguing about who was right all along, which is not instrumentalist, so we might as well just be on twitter.

@PatrickDelaney Disagree to the partial extent that it would just be even worse on Twitter. At least, after adjusting for who participates/network effects on dialog, etc.

@Jotto999 Yes, maybe I should have said, curated Twitter. Basically without some kind of third party validation source, it becomes an argument over who can yell the loudest. Also complicating what I'm saying above which I failed to mention: the map is not the territory, and if the data source gets somehow hacked or just doesn't update in time, or if the person looking at the third party data source is willfully blind to important factors, the shouting match may still be justified to some extent, but my thought is, hopefully discussions should help the participants think deeper about what they are talking about, providing evidence for claims, rather than purely political argumentation.

@PatrickDelaney Something an old engineer dude who had fled the Soviet Union told me years ago that stuck with me, "if we agree with each other on everything, we're just politicians, I want to be an engineer, not a politician." I feel like that summarizes a lot of Twitter debates.

So far it feels like it's happening. I would say the start of 2023 is comparable with the end of 2022, but the start of 2022 clearly feels sleepy in comparison.

@Gigacasting I think my previous comment still holds: "I hope we agree that so far nothing like that is happening, and you're expecting growth in adoption on average speeding up, and advancement at least not slowing down?" [by you I meant people holding YES] Making the previous year look "sleepy" is a big ask, changes would have to be very easily visible in many ways.

I hope we agree that so far nothing like that is happening, and you're expecting growth in adoption on average speeding up, and advancement at least not slowing down?

@napewno Right, I don't think this has happened yet. And given how impressive 2022 was, I'm not even sure what could plausibly make 2022 look "sleepy".

For the record, this "event" seems plausible to me. It would partly depend on how much better GPT-4 is. Other developments could add weight to the claim.

But that said, people get into exaggerated frenzies. All the time. So in this market, the wording says it shouldn't be based absolute excitement levels in 2023 -- we're making a comparison. Remember the crazy AI blast of 2022, such as Stable Diffusion and the ChatGPT demo. My Twitter feed has been frequently plastered with memes about how out-of-control people feel AI progress has been this year. I wouldn't want to unfairly discount a sufficiently-non-sleepy 2023. But I also expect many easily-excited people will have a kind of history amnesia.