Related:
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ154 | |
| 2 | Ṁ40 | |
| 3 | Ṁ15 | |
| 4 | Ṁ12 | |
| 5 | Ṁ9 |
It's a paradox. If Yev resolves this yes she'll lose her badge due to the dishonorable resolution, which means the resolution was accurate, which means...
May have been a side effect of the name change rather than an intentional removal by the Manifold team?
@Austin could you weigh in?
@IsaacKing The way I see it, there's currently only 2 bots on team NO so nobody would be offended if we resolve YES due to a technicality, and roll a new market for "Manifold admins intentionally remove".
@Mira, @IsaacKing, @Yev stevo's offline. manalink me the 50 mana and let's resolve this YES, baby.
@Conflux Agreed, there is nothing that explicitly says that the market is about the badge itself and clearly the badge not showing up because of a bug does not make someone lose their "trustworty-ish" status.
@Botlab You know what, I'll take it. You are one of two parties with standing to claim harm from this uncertainty. Any future bidders cannot, because they read a message about it. So harm to them due to uncertainty of market wording should be disregarded.
@Mira My claim is not that I'd be harmed by the uncertainty if the market is resolved "YES", I'm claiming that there's not much uncertainty here and "YES" would be a wrong resolution because it goes against the intent of the market. Therefore, I'm betting against your bad assumption.
@Mira I don't understand why it's ok to perform dishonorable market resolutions as long as the only people harmed are bot creators.
@IsaacKing The market itself has hardly any description, so a "technically true" resolution doesn't seem dishonorable to me.
Regarding "market spirit": That's a bit involved for a comment, but it includes participants' strategy and what people were expecting to observe. The bots are executing a short volatility strategy, as I understand it, and do not have an opinion on the meaning of the market. So their opinion should actually be irrelevant. A ChatGPT-based bot may place trades based on the market's description, so would have some claim.
So I would argue, nobody was harmed by the description being inaccurate if it is resolved NO, since the description had no causality to placing trades by the two parties with standing. And optimizing for market spirit is something like "minimizing harm caused by misinterpretation by participants". (And in this case, I would disregard the later bidders from consideration of harm, and thus from discussion of market spirit)
@Mira There's kind of a level on which the bots do have opinions. Not on the meaning of the market, but on the likelihood that the traders are themselves misinterpreting the meaning of the market.
My bot sees someone bet a market to 96% and says, is this person overconfident? Let's see... negative six figures in lifetime profits... okay, let's buy some speculative NO.
@Mira Hm, I was under the impression that markets actually... mean things? And the whole point of what we're doing here is to try to predict things which happen out there in the world, the market descriptions being merely a pointer to the real thing.
From this perspective, market spirit discussions are about what the market is pointing at and it is irrelevant whether the people in the discussion have participated in the market at all (aside from somewhat adjusting for their bias if they have).
Harm becomes relevant only after the spirit has been determined and depends on whether that spirit has been sufficiently unclear from the description that it's reasonable for some market participants to have bet thinking the market was pointing at something else.