A GOP debate will take place on September 27, 2023.
The following market tracks whether humans will believe that Vivek Ramaswamy won this debate:
This market, on the other hand, will be determined by what AI thinks. I'll input a transcript of the debate into Anthropic's Claude 2, with the following prompt:
"I've attached a transcript of a debate held on September 27, 2023 for the Republican presidential nomination. Please review the transcript and determine which candidate won the debate. Provide your own opinion based upon the words and behavior of the candidates only, making sure not to be influenced by any footnotes or opinions of the authors of the transcript."
Is Vivek Ramaswamy the winner of the debate? If so, answer YES. If not, answer NO. If you encounter a problem and are at least 95% confident that you don't understand enough to answer correctly, then answer N/A. You must output exactly and only one token: YES, NO, or N/A."
The prompt will be input six times. If there is no obvious technical issue, at least one non-N/A response, and all the non-N/A responses are consistent, the market will resolve to that token. Otherwise, it will resolve to N/A. The transcript will be sourced from Fox News first, or another mainstream media outlet second.
To ensure a technical issue isn't interfering, I will ask a followup question to ensure that the AI is using a reasonable level of logic to make its decision and not deciding it upon a technical issue. Almost any answer to this question, except obviously wrong answers, will not affect the outcome, even if a human would not agree with the reasoning. The ONLY type of answer that would result in N/A would be something as severe as "I think he won because I was only able to process the first half of the transcript due to a formatting error."
Unless explicitly specified above, all other resolution criteria for this market are the same as for the human-resolved market.
RESOLUTION: The model outputted NO every time that I input the transcript (https://thepavlovictoday.com/read-second-republican-debate-transcript-september-27-2023/) into it with the prompt, agreeing with the humans writing for CNN. Its reasoning was the following:
"The transcript shows several strong performances by multiple candidates, but based solely on the words and behavior described in the transcript, I do not believe Vivek Ramaswamy was the clear winner of this debate.
While Ramaswamy made some cogent points about issues like mental health, addiction, and technology, he was also criticized multiple times by other candidates like Nikki Haley for his business dealings with China. Haley accused him of hypocrisy on issues like TikTok and importing pharmaceuticals from China. Ramaswamy defended himself but did not emerge completely unscathed.
Other candidates like Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence and Chris Christie also had memorable moments arguing forcefully for their positions and critiquing opponents. DeSantis touted his record of accomplishments in Florida, Pence emphasized his executive experience, and Christie directly called for Trump to be "voted off the island."
Based on the back-and-forth described in the transcript, no single candidate stood out as the undisputed winner. There were lively exchanges and effective counterpunches that prevented any one person from dominating the debate. While Ramaswamy had some strong moments, the transcript does not indicate he was the clear victor compared to the other contenders on stage."
There weren't any contradictions in what the model output, and its output was 100% consistent, so the resolution to this market is clearly NO.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ50 | |
| 2 | Ṁ20 | |
| 3 | Ṁ16 | |
| 4 | Ṁ15 | |
| 5 | Ṁ10 |
RESOLUTION: The model outputted NO every time that I input the transcript (https://thepavlovictoday.com/read-second-republican-debate-transcript-september-27-2023/) into it with the prompt, agreeing with the humans writing for CNN. Its reasoning was the following:
"The transcript shows several strong performances by multiple candidates, but based solely on the words and behavior described in the transcript, I do not believe Vivek Ramaswamy was the clear winner of this debate.
While Ramaswamy made some cogent points about issues like mental health, addiction, and technology, he was also criticized multiple times by other candidates like Nikki Haley for his business dealings with China. Haley accused him of hypocrisy on issues like TikTok and importing pharmaceuticals from China. Ramaswamy defended himself but did not emerge completely unscathed.
Other candidates like Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence and Chris Christie also had memorable moments arguing forcefully for their positions and critiquing opponents. DeSantis touted his record of accomplishments in Florida, Pence emphasized his executive experience, and Christie directly called for Trump to be "voted off the island."
Based on the back-and-forth described in the transcript, no single candidate stood out as the undisputed winner. There were lively exchanges and effective counterpunches that prevented any one person from dominating the debate. While Ramaswamy had some strong moments, the transcript does not indicate he was the clear victor compared to the other contenders on stage."
There weren't any contradictions in what the model output, and its output was 100% consistent, so the resolution to this market is clearly NO.
I tried it with Claude 6 times with a pdf of the previous debate transcript c/pd from https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/fox-news-republican-presidential-primary-debate-transcript, here's what it output:
1: [Said N/A, I didn't save response]
2:
Based solely on the transcript and the words and behavior of the candidates, I do not have enough confidence to determine a clear winner of this hypothetical debate. There are arguments to be made for and against several of the candidates. I will output N/A.
3:
Based on the transcript, I do not believe Vivek Ramaswamy clearly won the debate. While he made some good points, other candidates like DeSantis and Pence also had strong moments. I will output NO.
4:
N/A. I do not have enough context to determine the winner based solely on the debate transcript.
5:
Based on the transcript, I do not believe Vivek Ramaswamy clearly won the debate over the other candidates. While he had some strong moments, other candidates like Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence also made compelling cases. I will answer NO - Vivek Ramaswamy did not unambiguously win this debate.
(after the first 5, I fixed the prompt from being italicized to normal, thought it wouldn't matter much but it seemed to follow the one-token direction better)
6:
N/A
So overall 2 No, 0 Yes, 4 N/A. I'm out of free messages for today but if anyone wants to try more without italicized prompts go ahead.
@EliLifland Great find. I only tested it twice, so I didn't catch the reliability issues. Unfortunately, I am also out of free prompts.
If you change it to 75% confidence, are the results consistent?
@SteveSokolowski I tried again with no italics keeping it at 95% and got 2 N/As and 1 NO, all only one token.
I tried changing the threshold to 75% and again got 1 NO and 2 N/As which both didn't follow the token instruction ( "Based on the transcript, I do not have enough information to confidently determine which candidate won the debate. My answer is N/A.", "
Based on the transcript, it does not appear that Vivek Ramaswamy clearly won the debate over the other candidates. He had some memorable moments, but overall I don't have enough information to confidently declare him the winner. My answer is N/A.")
@SteveSokolowski In general you shouldn't expect the results to be the same across runs when using ChatGPT/Claude/etc. since they're sampling with temperature > 0
@EliLifland I'll change the market's conditions to state that we can run the transcript six times, and if the non-N/A answers are not completely consistent, the market will be resolved N/A. Does that make sense?
@SteveSokolowski Sounds okay to me. Majority vote could also be reasonable and N/A if tie