Il miglior fabbro, FerrisHueller.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ64,940 | |
| 2 | Ṁ28,537 | |
| 3 | Ṁ13,851 | |
| 4 | Ṁ9,374 | |
| 5 | Ṁ3,866 |
People are also trading
Kudos to @EliezerYudkowsky for causing chaos after all, I've never seen this level of moderator chaos 😂
Brief recap of the madness to the best of my knowledge:
December 31st:
Eliezer tweets the tweet.
Eliezer edits the tweet.
Someone sees the tweet, we all buy up to the 90s .
Eliezer sets a limit order on No at 99% and a limit order for yes at 75%, hoping to capitalize on the chaos and do some volatility trading.
Me and a bunch of other people set up yes limit orders just above Eliezer's yes limit order at 75% and keep buying yes so he never gets to sell the no shares he bought at 99%.
The price settles at 96%.
Much debate in the comments over resolution.
January 1st:
New Year's Day resolvathon happens in discord. SG joins the call. We ask SG for confirmation we can resolve all the unambiguous markets by him and other staff.
He says yes, but also starts resolving his own markets.
We ask him specifically what the resolution for the market should be, since I'd seen there was debate.
Everyone on the call agrees it should resolve yes, but SG has not yet resolved it yes.
Chris resolves the market to yes himself.
SG says he endorses the yes resolution.
No one mentions in the comments here that SG endorsed the yes resolution, so it looks like Chris resolved it himself without talking to SG, which isn't what happened.
More debate in the comments.
Chris and Dreeve DM, agree that letting SG resolve the market himself would be best.
Dreeve un-resolves the market, but now it looks to everyone like he unresolved Chris' resolution without talking to Chris, which isn't what happened.
January 2nd:
People see the market has been un-resolved, and object.
More debate in the comments.
More debate in the Discord.
SG resolves the market.
Happy New Year everyone!
@Joshua Exactly. Thanks! Yeah, the original resolution was based on SG's general green light on moderators resolving his unambiguous markets. So we discussed, decided this wasn't an unambiguous resolution, and threw it back to SG. If we'd known that SG had in fact already agreed it was YES then we wouldn't have bothered with that.
(In response to some other comments here: I've made sure to mention my conflict of interest throughout the discussion and would never unilaterally resolve with a conflict of interest.)
Why I disagree with a straight YES resolution, biased as it is, boils down to whether this was purely a joke market where the technicality was the point or whether it was a real prediction about the cringey meme and whether Eliezer would be willing to publicly utter it. Ie, is there a conflict between the spirit and the letter or not? From the comments it appears that no one but me perceived this to be about anything but the letter, so that's embarrassing for me. Basically like me missing the joke, I guess.
@dreev fwiw I also considered it "a real prediction about the cringey meme and whether Eliezer would be willing to publicly utter it", and this should clearly resolve YES also in spirit as he did "publicly utter it". As others mentioned, there were dozens of ways to make this ambiguous, but this wasn't one of them.
@Lorenzo But that's where I see the ambiguity. Tweeting something in a way that technically counts but ensures your followers don't actually see it is... intermediate between tweeting it and not, as the tweet itself says.
@benshindel If THIS market can’t even resolve YES… I don’t see how any market about any tweet ever could resolve fairly. Like… he tweeted the word. No typo, no ambiguity. The word was tweeted. There’s no reason to resolve NO except for resolution manipulation.
@benshindel Yeah I agree that if this isn't clear-cut enough for a YES resolution, I don't see what could be.
@PlasmaBallin yeah it's super clear-cut. Even the most steelman of a pro-NO argument requires a lot of mental gymnastics like adding resolution conditions that simply weren't/aren't there or overruling the question itself by what implications it might or might not contain. Whereas for a YES resolution there isn't even any way to argue he didn't do exactly what the question asks.
A couple moderators discussed and decided we need @SG to resolve this himself. My own biased opinion (and Eliezer's at least originally) is that immediately removing the tweet makes it not fully count as YES, unless I missed a clarification about that from the market creator? I've got a bunch more arguments in the comments below.
PS, here are some excerpts from the mod discussion to give a sense of why it's not cut and dried:
"How would you resolve, if you were the creator?"
"i would be agonizing like mad, for starters. 'painfully invidious' is how i predicted it would be if eliezer did something intermediate between tweeting it and not. i actually kind of implored him not to for that reason ('unless it would be sufficiently funny', i said, while predicting it wouldn't be -- which may count as yet another misprediction of mine!)"
"i think there are totally coherent arguments one could make for the whole spectrum: yes, no, 50%, n/a"
"yeah, that's fair, he fell a bit short on maximizing ambiguity. but that fact itself suggests a resolution principle akin to creator intent: what fraction true is it that eliezer tweeted the word, by his own estimation? presumably 50%"
"With the hypothetical tweet about rain - I think if people thought the spirit of the question was about the meaning of the tweet, then it's an OK comparison. People want to know if eliezer thinks it's raining or whatever. So I think that is the crux - most are interpreting the market as a game about whether someone will type a specific word, regardless of meaning or seriousness."
"i did (maybe naively) think of it as a real prediction about that word becoming a Thing, using eliezer tweeting it as a proxy for that."
"i think i'd lean towards resolve-to-PROB at 50%? but i'd probably be scared to just make that call and want to set up polls and stuff. like i said, painful and agonizing"
PPS, if @SG doesn't want to, can we get @EliezerYudkowsky to pick the fairest resolution by his estimation?
@dreev How did you get selected as a mod on this site if this is your understanding of this market. Markets on this site should not be resolved for the 1% of users who are in some private group chat discussing some sort of several-levels-abstracted meanings of a market. They should be resolved clearly and fairly in line with the stated resolution criteria.
The market asks if he will write a tweet “containing the word”. It does not imply anything about whether the “concept of rationalussy” will become popularized or some other bs. You would obviously obviously obviously not be espousing this nonsense position if you weren’t a NO-holder and I think these are incredibly poor arguments.
Why would asking Yudkowsky, whose stated goal was to create chaos in this market, be relevant to the resolution.
Would you say that asking Trump if he won the 2020 election to resolve the election markets would have been wise (had the site been around then)? How about asking Sam Altman if winning Time CEO of the Year should count as 50% in the Time POTY market? That’s clearly an illogical norm and wouldn’t make sense to resolve this market.
@benshindel Not to mention that the market expectation of this event… AFTER the event occurred, was to rapidly approach 100%, and probably would be closer were it not for ppl fearing that the mods would be strong-armed into some sort of nonsensical resolution. I think it’s very clearly a bad norm for a prediction site to have its users have to hedge towards 50% on every market on the off-chance that a vocal minority of the mods holding shares in the market manages to swing the resolution against the obvious and stated resolution.
@dreev LMFAO! 🤡 This is not like in the football game "the ball was over plane line, but did players ball sack graze touch ground before it crossed for the touchdown?" Very clearly @EliezerYudkowsky had the full rational in the tweet with the bussy not touching the ground!!! We are in, it is a YES!
(These points already made elsewhere, but putting them in this comment thread for visibility)
It was a friendly chat, but I object it being characterised as agreement that there was ambiguity, or anything like that. All of the quotes in your comment quoting from our chat are from you, except for me asking "how would you resolve if you were the creator", and me saying:
With the hypothetical tweet about rain - I think if people thought the spirit of the question was about the meaning of the tweet, then it's an OK comparison. People want to know if eliezer thinks it's raining or whatever. So I think that is the crux - most are interpreting the market as a game about whether someone will type a specific word, regardless of meaning or seriousness
Which was me identifying the crux, but not agreeing with anything.
You unresolved the market before our discussion started (your first message to me was "so I tentatively unresolved"), and given that you felt strongly, I thought it indeed made sense to leave it for SG to resolve at that point (I was unaware he had already endorsed the resolution), as opposed to re-resolving again myself. But I continued to think it was totally clear cut. Given you disagreed as strongly as you did, it's fine to defer to SG, but I wasn't convinced of anything ambiguous about the market itself.
@chrisjbillington Makes sense, yeah, I slightly overinterpreted "well let's see how SG resolves then" from our chat but we agree on everything of substance! (At the meta/mod level, I mean.)
@KevinBurke Yudkowsky fumbled an attempt to have this market be ambiguous, so NO holders are doing mental acrobatics why writing and posting a tweet containing a word doesn't count as "writing a tweet containing a word".