@ButtocksCocktoasten clearly has the right of it. Rationalussy is going to happen, it is merely a question of when. I fear that only when they are on top of the trading world, financially dominating @jack, only then everyone will see the light.

The tipping interface doesn't allow me to be as specific as a laugh react, but it's a laugh react in spirit.

@EliezerYudkowsky THATZ THE SPIRIT

EMBRACE THE TRAUNCH
FREE THE LUSSY

https://manifold.markets/MartinRandall/what-is-the-best-definition-of-rati

I've been spending too much time on twitter lately and my brain pattern matched this to those crypto impersonator scams that reply to everything

@NiclasKupper Or a bit higher because one of those other things is trolling.

@NiclasKupper There's also the question of my discount rate.

The metric to look at to determine what you can get by resolving a market however suits you, is actually not the market probability but the total amount on the order book in each direction that you could bet against given your current liquidity, since that's the amount available to acquire by resolving the market against that direction.

("you could bet against" == if you can't actually buy through a large limit order at >95% or <5%, since you need >20 times the amount of the limit order, you only count the amount of bet you're actually able to take)

@jbeshir The 50% thing holds iff the order book is empty and you're only trading against the AMM, modulo discount rates and actual preferences, though.

@jbeshir That also assumes the AMM is symmetric around 50%. This one is centered around 45% because most liquidity injections happened below 50%.

@Yev Good point. For anyone who wants to validate: I moved the % to 46% and now the market details popup says:

Pool: 705 YES, 880 NO

@MartinRandall Because of the overwhelming amount of YES compared to NO limit orders, the pool is pretty much irrelevant right?

Relatedly, prosocial people will remove their YES limit orders because it incentivizes an absence of rationalussy tweet, and because they most likely will lose money (assuming Eliezer acts according to his incentives). (More specifically, ~M$7000 can be made in the NO direction and only ~M$1000 can be made in the YES direction)

Though in any case the discount rate is probably much stronger of a consideration. I’m guessing it’s worth waiting 1 extra year for 7x profits? Depends on the opportunity cost of money I suppose..

@BionicD0LPH1N you think a deleted rationalussy tweet is a positive externality?

@EliezerYudkowsky that would be reward hacking. But perhaps this question, in its current wording, assumes far too much yudlignment.

Is it actually a tweet if it is not posted? Hard to guess SG's ontology.

On the other hand, posted and immediately deleted seems clearly yes.

@EliezerYudkowsky No, you must post the tweet for the market to resolve YES.

@SG How about if I write it and Aella posts it for me?

@EliezerYudkowsky Wow, so many edge cases! I'd say yes if it is also attributed to you. If you write the post and have someone else post it as themselves without attribution, that would not count. (It's not in the spirit of "writing a tweet".)

@SG Really? I don't think it should count if it's not from Eliezer's own account. The market wasn't about whether he would say it, it was about whether he would tweet it. If a friend of mine tweets a quote of something I said, that's not the same thing as me tweeting it.

@IsaacKing Ok, you have convinced me. @EliezerYudkowsky the tweet must be written by you and come from your own Twitter account (the one with your name on it, no alts).

@SG What if I don't tweet the word as text and instead tweet a picture containing the word?

I'm waiting for someone to point out that "rationalussy" isn't actually a word, so even if Eliezer tweets that string of characters, this market should still resolve to NO unless that string gets added to some dictionaries before the close date.

Also, a warning to @SG: I predict that if you answer "yes" to Eliezer's question about a picture containing the word, he will next ask just how distorted the characters in the image are allowed to be.

Well, I think the dictionary point doesn't work since words aren't a super well-defined concept to begin with, and "rationalussy" has a reasonably well-understood descriptivist definition. I think the string-of-characters argument is important in edge cases such as posting a URL along the lines of [something]?ref=rationalussy&s=5a7f98154f8cea60fc00e4b6d1e51158 where it shouldn't count.

@AndrewG "Word" is a fuzzy category, for sure. Many strings fall in a grey area where it's unclear whether or not they are words. But that doesn't mean that all strings are words. "Sdmnwermnnsadcxiuvoixudsfase", for example, is not a word.

A google search for "rationalussy" returns 3 results, which are all about this market/tweet. I don't think the string has any meaningful definition; there's no possible way for Eliezer to use it as a word in a Tweet that wouldn't either be directly referring to this market or trying to give it a new definition. If I saw the string used as a word in any other context, I would have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

@IsaacKing The market is in fact not about what I would tweet, it is about what I would write. Like, fine for SG to say it's about tweeting too, but the market description sure doesn't use "tweet" the verb rather than "tweet" the noun. As for "word", who's to say that it means "word" in the dictionary-as-prescriptivist-legislator-of-wordness sense rather than in the regular-expressions sense, since the former sense makes the market impossible of satisfaction?

(You were totally right about my next question being how much the word needed to be easily readable / stand out within the image.)

(And Andrew is correct that I was going to ask about strings inside of URLs.)

@AndrewG What is the definition of rationalussy? This has been the biggest mystery of the market.

If you're going for maximum ambiguity, you should make sure to misspell it, perhaps with rare Unicode characters that look almost but not quite like English letters. Also you might write it in a format that isn't a tweet but allow someone to screenshot it as a tweet, so that it's ambiguous whether it was a tweet or not. And dictate it verbally so that it's ambiguous whether you wrote it. And do it on Dec 31, close to midnight, from an undisclosed timezone, so that it's ambiguous whether it was by the end of 2023.

Hey Eliezer, are you Qualy the lightbulb? Keeping in mind that Qualy wrote this tweet: https://twitter.com/QualyThe/status/1567967324925198345 and that you are committed to answer this question with "no comment": https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/pfbid0tyaKqmc3pkCFbJf4GTMZu7v1RiauVyrkUW84dQf689b9ktuTVFMEeCSek99Qxi5Rl

@JamesBabcock "the one with your name on it, no alts"

Ah, well, that's slightly less fun. But maybe Eliezer could lend out his Twitter account, have someone else tweet it, and then glomarize about whether they were taking a dictation vs writing it themself? It's either that or new year's eve on an obscure island where determining its true timezone would require resolving an obscure territorial dispute between two countries.

@JamesBabcock True, but Eliezer is also a market creator, so he'd need to be worried that defecting on SG by confounding this market would cause SG to tit-for-tat by almost, but-not-quite, solving the alignment problem.

@MartinRandall Almost but not quite solving aligment is much better than what we have now.

I think Eliezer would consider SG working on aligment to make Eliezer’s markets resolve ambiguously an incentive to do it.

@a This can work for both yes and no. there's also a similar amount of profit on the table if he buys a ton of no and doesn't tweet

@jack Actually much more available from no, given current order book, so sticking with my no shares for now.

@SG As penance for writing this, I may unlist this market...

@SG Can you do that? I don't see an unlist button on my markets.

@Yev I can do it. (We should probably make the option available to all market creators though.)

@SG I think "CFAR'd freak" alone makes you a criminal mastermind. Like, this is brilliant, but also you should be jailed.

@SG Do not pass Go! Do not collect 200!
ngl I did buy more Steven after this lmao

snort a line of amphetemines
with your wife's boyfriend's credit card

@SG

Beat it up, my friend, make a bet
On Manifold Markets, not just yet
Put this market right in your face
(Mani)swipe your doubt with a thought experiment
Hop on the bandwagon, let's make some cash
I'll do the math while we invest
Spit in the screen, look at the prize
This market is hot, come take a bite

Tie me up with some logic chains
Let's debate, I'll take the pains
I want you to park that big brain right in this little skull
Make it think, make me shrink
At the thought of being wrong I don't judge, I don't sway
But let me tell you, I got this mind (ayy, ayy)

- gpt-mc-3

@GeorgeVii I got lucky! I've been expecting to start getting scooped by automation, but it looks like no one has set it up yet. Or is watching it close enough.

@jbeshir really! hmm.
btw how did you manage to make 4k this week even without this? Is it just that your second largest position is volatile. or was that somewhat realized profit?
Seemed like nothing could have really had the liquidity to get such gains (although perhaps you could snipe large limit orders if you knew where they were. I think it'd be very handy to have such a sort function to find high orderbook liquidity)

@GeorgeVii https://manifold.markets/Charlie/emotional-insurance-will-orlando-ci helped a lot, I've been throwing all my loans into the CEP markets which were overvalued to start with so I got some there, and I think a lot of the rest is volatility.

@jbeshir Thanks. Ah yeah, looks like you were buying into massive limit orders there.
@ManifoldMarkets Would be nice to have a sort be able to find these (ofc other things are probs higher on priority list rn)

@GeorgeVii Spindle's bounties are sporadic for sure

@MattP They're pretty regular if u know the pattern

@JamesBabcock It's currently m10,000, does that change your odds?

@MartinRandall No, it's only M$723. Where did you get 10k?

@MartinRandall Wait, I can't do math. It's about M$7475.

@Yev I added up all the limit NO orders.

@Yev Badly, apparently.

@MartinRandall And I forgot to include the limit orders at first :D

@EliezerYudkowsky