The probability of /SG/will-eliezer-yudkowsky-write-a-twee has stayed relatively stable at close to 50% since mid-November last year. As some have already mentioned in the comments, this doesn't match the expected time decay of markets like this, where the probability should normally go down over time unless some news breaks that makes people think it is more likely to happen soon, or the probability distribution for when the event happens has most of its mass towards the end of the period being discussed. However, others have pointed out the this could actually be rational if people place a large credence on the possibility of Yudkowsky tweeting the word at the last minute to troll the market participants and/or make a profit. This market will resolve YES if he writes a tweet containing the word "rationalussy" on the last day of 2023 (CT).
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ5,379 | |
| 2 | Ṁ2,454 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1,374 | |
| 4 | Ṁ989 | |
| 5 | Ṁ695 |
People are also trading
@EliezerYudkowsky please weigh in here. Can't hurt, can only help and will give such joy to the audience.
@ClubmasterTransparent He said his piece in the comments of the market in the description
@Tumbles so you consider the time of the commenter to the market linked to in the description to be more valuable than mine I'll bite this time, I don't mind making a fool of myself too much. The Manifold commenter is provisionally.considered by me a pompous ass based on their behavior in other markets, and to the extent Manifold engages me, it's helpful to me to observe how longtime users interact with them.
@Tumbles Thanks for your response. In the interim I've gone to the comments in the linked market and determined that yes the Manifold poster @EliezerYudkowsky did say some stuff in the middle of the voluminous comments, but I'm not interested enough to read them in context with the attention it would take to figure them out. I am still medium curious why the Manifold poster appears to live rent-free in so many people here's heads, and inclined to think the poster, the tweeter and the subject of the Wikipedia article are not a single entity. No need to argue about it though, eventually the answer will reveal itself or it won't.
@ClubmasterTransparent "considered by me a..."
Why would that make you think the commentor is not the person who did the tweet?
@DavidBolin Great question. I'm an Old Internet Person, so I approach all online interlocutors with an understanding that they may or may not be a sock puppet. In the case of @EliezerYudkowsky I encountered in a new to me setting, an interlocutor who behaved dismissively toward me but seemed treated deferentially by people already here. I googled the username and discovered a very influential within a very narrow niche (I'm aware my own charmed life experience sometimes leads me to overestimate the narrowness of other people's niches) celebrity. Since then the poster has not done anything one way or another to indicate I should beware of them. I have done a bunch of stuff to test the waters of this place more generally. Not all that useful for me to get to the bottom of it, but it's best for me to proceed on the working assumption the poster and the Wiki subject have different people behind them. I don't care about the tweeter because everyone I respect assumes Twitter is FUBAR and those who still use it consider it the least worst option. So that's another reason for me to entertain the possibility that there's no reason for me to walk on eggshells around the Manifold poster.
@ClubmasterTransparent This is why we have the verified badge for public figures who really are who they say they are.
@PlasmaBallin Anyway he said that the commenter here was "pompous", which would constitute evidence that it is actually the named person.
@PlasmaBallin booo, see ongoing discussion in the other market. I don't think this counts as him tweeting it! i suppose i could see a case for this resolving YES even if the other one resolves NO due to "on" vs "by" subtleties. but mostly i think the NO arguments there also apply here.
If you tweet something and then delete the tweet, that means you must have tweeted it, or else you wouldn't have been able to delete it.
If you tweet a word and then edit the word out, you must have tweeted the word, because if you didn't tweet the word you wouldn't have been able to edit the word out.
@dreev I don't think "on" vs. "by" makes any difference. I was originally planning to wait for S G to resolve his market just to avoid any controversy on this one, but after reflecting on it, I decided that I shouldn't do that because I don't think it would actually matter. I think the answer is completely unambiguous, so I wouldn't be willing to resolve this one NO even if S G did, since that would be a misresolution.
Beginners mind. Many here seem confident that the trader @EliezerYudkowsky, the subject of the Wikipedia article same name and the tweeter Eliezer Yudkowsky are the same or at least aligned, but all the evidence I have suggests there's probably a disconnect.
Why would he buy so many shares here if he was just going to let it resolve N/A?
https://manifold.markets/PlasmaBallin/unexpected-rationalussy-paradox-if?r=UGxhc21hQmFsbGlu
@PlasmaBallin Not tweeting it would be boring. So if he isn't going to tweet it, he at least has to build up the tension by making people think he will tweet it at the last moment, to make it less boring. So that would be why he bought those shares.