How does this "make whatever AI risk messaging is happening more expensive"?

@LukeHanks Because the two markets have to be kept in sync, without the benefit of Catnee’s enormous position keeping this one afloat

@AashiqDheeraj77eb The way I see it, the markets work like a game of tug-of-war, so how hard one side has to pull (invest) to keep the flag (probability) in a particular position depends on how hard the opposing side is pulling (investing). All you've done is added a second rope (market). Sure it might split the attention of participants, but the amount of strength (investment) available on each side is the same. Every bit of mana I put in this market is mana I'm not putting in the other market and vice versa and the same applies to anyone who bets in opposition to me. I don't see how it makes it more expensive (in terms of mana) than if everyone was just participating in one market.

For now the probability of this market is pretty much up to who notices it, but in the long run I expect it to sync with the other one.

@LukeHanks

For most markets I agree with this logic, but I think that duplicate markets like this are uniquely worthwhile for things like AI Doom. There's probably a lot of people who would bet No in these markets but they have a coordination problem.

They're worried about their investment's value being at the mercy of the whales on the other side of the bet, and they're worried that other potential "no" voters will stay out of the market for the same reason. They begin to view the AI markets as Stocks that rise and fall by sentiment rather than actual predictions.

Duplicate markets like this help to show what the true price of these markets would be without the whales, and shows that whales are not infinitely dedicated to making ideological bets. Decreased fear of whales means more people making common sense bets, which leads to more accurate predictions.

@Joshua There's nothing keeping whales out of this market, so why should fear of whales be any different here? If anything, I would think the fear of whales should be higher since we don't know which whales will turn their attention to this market.

Regardless I still don't see how that would "make whatever AI risk messaging is happening more expensive".

@LukeHanks

Well the whales have orders of magnitude more mana than the average person, but not orders of magnitude more time they're willing to spend on this site. They can come bet here, but they haven't yet.

If someone new to the site sees a massively mispriced market about the world ending before 2030, they might think "oh wow this site is filled with doomers". If they see two markets and one is accurate, they might think "oh that other market is mispriced, I should go vote no there."

If this market encourages more people to vote "no", then it makes it more expensive for the whales to vote yes.

@Joshua Good points that I agree with, and arbitrage is far from a foregone conclusion. Even if it plays out as neatly as others suggest, I will have learned something. So far, there seems to be divergence btw my market and the other one, which is interesting. Both markets are optimal No votes and resolve very far from now and Manifold is probably not operational in the “Yes” state of the world — so “Arbitrage” isn’t as compelling as it ordinarily is

The xrisk doomers will just come to this market if it gets big enough.

@ShadowyZephyr Yes, I agree. If this market gets big enough and bid up by the X-risk doomers, I will make another one

@AashiqDheeraj77eb That doesn't feel very pro-social.

@MartinRandall I think that prediction markets can potentially be used to advertise AI ex-risk productively, but I think that formulating them to focus on nearer term near-misses (such as many deaths or large economic loss) would be better. Of course, a humanity-ending event would also trigger the near-miss market. In addition, the near-miss market would trade at a higher probability.

Some of my markets are meant to highlight the absurdity of the current AI markets. If I'm right about what markets are compelling, it is immensely pro-social to nudge people to make more sensible markets.

@MartinRandall why are you putting so much on YES in the 2100 xrisk market? It was at its highest point and you still bought YES even though there were 20K of NO limit orders on 47% so you can't make any short term profit

@AashiqDheeraj77eb I think since different people have different ideas about what matters are useful it's wise to live and let live in general. Specifically threatening to keep making more and more duplicates of my market feels a bit hostile. It's of course allowed, but generally if you think I made a useless market, maybe ignore it, or make a better one?

@ShadowyZephyr I think the risk of extinction by 2100 is high and it's also a hedge against my NO bets on the 2040 market. This isn't anything galaxy brained, I'm betting YES because the current odds are too low.

@MartinRandall So it's just to make a statement (like most of the other bettors on that market XD)

@MartinRandall You are of course entitled to feel however you like, but I don’t intend it as hostile. What business is it of yours what markets I make? If I were to make another, it would be just as much a duplicate of my own market. I am sensitive to the issue of spam, so I wouldn’t make another unless this one saw a huge uptick in interest. As it stands now, it wouldn’t be worth doing.

@ShadowyZephyr I think it's positive EV in mana terms, negative EV if I include my value of time spent. I don't make deliberately losing bets, I lose mana just fine by making errors.

@MartinRandall On the contrary, your market is a great market, very useful! It is so useful in fact that I found it interesting to clone it to better understand the behavior of AI ex-risk market participants! Imitation is a high form of flattery. If my market got clones, I would be overjoyed. However, I am happy to commit to never duplicate your markets (of course, substantive disagreement with their resolution or definition is not duplication). Would that be amenable to you?

@AashiqDheeraj77eb I'm glad it's not intended to be hostile, I must have misread your earlier comment.

I find it a bit annoying when there are duplicate markets because it makes it harder to bet without being taxed by arbitrage bots.

Hopefully future Manifold features will fix that.

Best wishes.

@MartinRandall I don’t view arbitrage bots as a tax. Rather, you have multiple options to express your opinion at a more attractive price. Of course, I do empathize with the issue of liquidity fragmentation, but your market is MUCH more liquid than mine, and I fear no one is missing much liquidity by ignoring my sleepy backwater of Manifold. And again, I wouldn’t duplicate it again unless this market got quite popular. And after hearing your displeasure, I won’t duplicate it even then.