(REMINDER -> PLEASE REMEMBER TO READ DESCRIPTION BEFORE BETTING)
Inspired by evergreen.
This market resolves to YES if an AI (controlling some sort of robotic body) "wipes out" a human that's skateboarding, surfing, or snowboarding on or before December 31, 2024. Otherwise, this market resolves to NO on January 1, 2025.
More specifically, this market resolves to YES if:
The AI pushes/bumps/etc. a human off of a skateboard in such a way that he/her crashes onto the ground
The AI pushes/bumps/etc. a human off a surfboard making them fall off it.
The AI pushes/bumps/etc. a human off a snow board making them fall,crash,etc.
If the crash looks like it would make a mid-1990s Totally Rad sports announcer go "oooh, wipeout!" in a faux-pained voice, it's probably sufficient for a YES resolution.
Edit: I should also note that this market does not require the AI to be sentient/conscious/an AGI or superintelligence/etc. The "wipe out" must have occurred after market creation (so on or after July 9th, 2023.)
1,000
3.00⚠Banned Creator
📢Resolved to N/A (Ambiguous criteria taken advantage of by creator who has a history of doing so) : Dupe but extended market of Will AI wipe out humans before end of 2023? (read desc.)
📝Discord Thread https://discord.com/channels/915138780216823849/1197536911590428683 or https://discord.com/invite/eHQBNBqXuh
@SirCryptomind If we're presently and retroactively NA'ing everything from banned creators, if deleted accounts are deserving of a ban, and since both you and me have deleted our accounts in our past, you should reresolve NA every single one of my markets to be consistent.
@Mira I was just circling back after 18 days after "New Years Resolutions", it was my understanding that this and the other were supposedly supposed to be N/A'd but got forgot about at some point for some reason and got brought back up today. The N/A was due to the point that the title was changed which falls under misleading which is in the CG as to N/A. If what I did is incorrect, I'll be told.
I do not know your history about deleting your account. I do not even know if you have ever been banned.
My actions are never personal against anyone, but rather just applying the Community Guidelines as they are stated.
From https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/will-ai-wipe-out-humans-before-end#iVONbtieZvCoifyfLim8, a self driving car that wipes someone out counts.
@levifinkelstein Because who the fuck would want to put an AI in a skateboard lol (or skateboard near a robot?).
@SneakySly Agreed. I regret participating in this market because I keep confusing it with the existential risk markets.
the market's title is deceptive because it says "will AI wipe out humans" and then the fine print says it only has to wipe out a single human. "wipe out humans" implies the market would only resolve positively if two or more humans are wiped out
@B hmm, my English is not the best, but I was thinking along the lines of:
"Will humans have flying cars by 2030"
"Will AI and humans have children by 2030"
"Will humans die in the next space flight"
I find it to be quite a strange reading that these questions require 2+ humans for them to resolve YES.
And I mean, if there's ambiguity, that's what the description is for right? So I don't think it's very deceptive.
Please remember to read the description before betting.
@levifinkelstein if only one human has a flying car you have a concept car that's potentially not practical
if many humans have them that's news!
@levifinkelstein The oil companies wanna remind everyone to do your part for the environment and recycle! ♻️
@levifinkelstein (I just want to register that yes, this is a clever title, but I think it's a bad norm to be intentionally deceptive in titles even when one can feel clever or make great memes by doing so)
Manifold consumer report: this market maker has a history of bullshitting. E.g. pretending to be a woman and fabricating a "date", at the expense of whoever was gullible enough to take the other side of their market.
Also be advised this isn't an AI Doom market, despite the tag. It's intentionally written in a way that makes it very easy to dupe a Yes condition. They just arrange for someone skateboarding to fall over from an AI's action, and they get "wiped out" by the AI. They're already the biggest Yes holder -- you know how this goes.
Got nothing against meme markets, and hey, the platform is chaotic-neutral. But @levifinkelstein actively dupes people on technicalities. Personally, I'd rather you didn't reward this liar by trading their markets.
https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/will-i-go-on-a-date-with-a-cute-ner#OzhOz43Arx3Gt2Wx7lWs
@ScroogeMcDuck I've removed it from the AI Doom group. Please don't use my groups to mislead people.
@ScroogeMcDuck Stop propagating demonstrably false lies. All the Levi haters keep doing this.
@levifinkelstein I see that you aren't worth replying to. Stop complaining about a bad reputation that you created
@ScroogeMcDuck I wish there was a "user page" here like on Wikipedia or Reddit where users can leave reviews and notes about other users as well as a systematic way for market creators to accumulate credibility. User reputation is quite important to give bidders confidence.
@B We have the ability to block or report users. Some users get the trustworthy-ish badge, but that won't scale. They incentivize question creation, but they're only starting to shape the incentive system for quality.
I imagine they could make a system where users review questions for importance, clarity, and objectivity in order to identify and incentivize high quality questions. If somebody reviews a question and gives it maximum or minimum ratings then they would have to provide a justification for that rating. Min and max ratings and their justifications would be public. Perhaps question creators should be required to rate their own questions before submitting them just to get them thinking.
I'm still thinking through what incentives to build on top of such data.
@LukeHanks Think ebay, Amazon, or AirBnB. There's no verification required for reviews of questions or of vendors overall. We generally trust that most of the time people give good ratings to good products and vendors and bad ratings to bad products and bad vendors, and if the occasional person gives a misleading rating it only has a small impact on average ratings. Some review systems can detect and disregard e.g., cancellation campaigns against vendors by e.g., giving less weight to a large number of ratings in a short period of time and more weight to consistent ratings over time. I meant that a system could actually review market makers, not just questions, but another approach is that market creators get a score which is an aggregate of the scores of their individual question.
@jacksonpolack yeah, not a perfect system, but I'd argue it's far superior to nothing at all (which is the current manifold status quo)
@ScroogeMcDuck huh there is now a user star system. Was that implemented recently or did I just miss it?