The story so far:
Once upon a time in a distant and strange land (Oxford, UK), twenty-some researchers could be seen standing over a box labelled "AGI - do not touch", embroiled in heated discussion.
Full story here
The last market saw highs, lows, intruiguing plotlines, and market manipulation. Onwards 😤😤
In response to the market manipulation last time (my bad, there was a clear flaw in the market design) I am changing the resolution criteria this time. I will resolve the market by picking randomly from all responses, weighted by their final probabilities. This means there is no advantage (in expectation) to dumping money into one answer to get it to the top
More market details:
Interpret "sentence" loosely, it can be just a word or phrase
I will correct punctuation and spelling errors unless you tell me not to
I will stop doing this if the story gets boring, or offensive or something
I also reserve the right to pick a different answer if the winner is silly (i.e. kills the story), or we get a load of single words in a row or something
Close date updated to 2022-11-24 11:00 pm
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ149 | |
| 2 | Ṁ76 | |
| 3 | Ṁ21 | |
| 4 | Ṁ20 | |
| 5 | Ṁ14 |
I will resolve the market by picking randomly from all responses, weighted by their final probabilities. This means there is no advantage (in expectation) to dumping money into one answer to get it to the top
Surely dumping money into one answer is still advantageous if they're weighted according to their final probabilities? It honestly just seems better to pick subjectively and people should just bet according to what they think you'll like best — I'm sure you'll only pick sentences of the highest Qualyty.
@finnhambly hm ok I may end up doing that, seems like it's more likely to result in a good story anyway
