4 ms·
> most/none of the estimators have any idea of the actual value being estimated. A subtle distinction is who is allowed to participate in a prediction market.
by ethbr0 3y ago
> most/none of the estimators have any idea of the actual value being estimated.
A subtle distinction is who is allowed to participate in a prediction market.
"Everyone with $1" is a terrible answer, and produces the bad results people are pointing to.
Financial markets avoid this because of their scale, where there's enough smart money to (usually) punish stupid money.
Absent that scale, it's just stupid money muddling the decisions of smart money.
Prediction markets with a knowledge barrier to entry would produce better results.
- gilleain 3y agoHow would you construct such a knowledge barrier? Another prediction market? Also, suggesting that there is such a thing as 'smart' money - presumably due to having more of it? - is amusing. As pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, there has been a lot of smart money acting particularly dumb over the last few years.
- ethbr0 3y agoA "Do you understand what superconductivity is?" or "Do you have a physics or engineering degree?" barrier? And the relevant question isn't whether 'smart' money does dumb things: it's whether 'smart' money does dumb things less frequently than a random sample of money. No one is an oracle, and there are absolutely outlier events that specifically confound experts, but I can't believe that increased expertise is uncorrelated with increased accuracy.
- kritiko 3y agoTetlock’s Superforecasters performed better than experts, though: >In the Good Judgment Project, "the top forecasters... performed about 30 percent better than the average for intelligence community analysts who could read intercepts and other secret data"