{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. As of June 2024, WHO member states made commitments to complete negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year\n2. Intensive negotiations on strengthening global pandemic response capacities concluded in May 2024\n3. No indication in sources that any country has yet ratified a new pandemic treaty\n4. Only 1 month remains until question resolution (Dec 31, 2024)\n5. Treaty ratification typically requires domestic legislative processes (e.g., Senate ratification in US)\n6. In 2021, 23 country leaders plus EU and WHO supported the concept\n7. The original timeline aimed for instrument adoption by 2024\n8. WHO has 194 member countries\n9. Recent comments (April 2024) on Manifold suggest pessimism about resolution\n10. Treaty negotiations appear to have continued through 2024 without clear indication of completion\n\n\n\n1. Time constraint: Only one month remains to get 10+ ratifications (Strength: 9/10)\n2. Legislative processes for treaty ratification typically take months or years (Strength: 8/10)\n3. Sources indicate negotiations were still ongoing in 2024, pushing timeline beyond original expectations (Strength: 7/10)\n4. International treaties often face domestic political resistance, especially on health sovereignty issues (Strength: 6/10)\n5. No indication that any country has yet ratified, suggesting process hasn't begun (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Strong initial support from 23+ countries suggests potential quick ratification once ready (Strength: 5/10)\n2. COVID-19 experience creates urgency for pandemic preparedness (Strength: 4/10)\n3. WHO and international bodies pushing for completion (Strength: 3/10)\n4. Some countries might have fast-track procedures for urgent international health matters (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe time constraint is the dominant factor here. Even if a treaty text was finalized and opened for signatures today, getting 10 countries through their full ratification processes in 30 days would be extremely challenging. The lack of any mention of countries having already ratified is particularly concerning.\n\nThe normal timeline for treaty ratification involves:\n1. Finalizing treaty text\n2. Opening for signatures\n3. Domestic review processes\n4. Legislative approval\n5. Final formal ratification\n\nEach step typically takes weeks or months. While there's clear international support and urgency around pandemic preparedness, this doesn't necessarily translate to rapid ratification processes.\n\nThe absence of news about completed ratifications this late in 2024 is strong evidence against resolution by year-end. If countries were close to ratifying, we would likely see this mentioned in recent coverage.\n\n\n0.05\n\n\nA base rate analysis of similar international treaties suggests ratification by 10+ countries within 30 days would be highly unusual. Even the most widely supported and urgent international agreements typically take months or years to achieve widespread ratification.\n\nThe most comparable recent example might be the COVAX initiative during COVID-19, which despite extreme urgency still took months to formalize participation from countries.\n\nMy tentative probability of 5% might even be generous given:\n1. The extremely short timeframe remaining\n2. Lack of evidence of any completed ratifications\n3. Typical duration of domestic ratification processes\n4. Absence of news suggesting imminent mass ratification\n\nHowever, I maintain some small probability due to:\n1. Possible unreported progress\n2. Potential for expedited processes given health security implications\n3. The possibility that some countries might use executive actions or simplified procedures\n\nThe combination of these factors, particularly the hard deadline and lack of reported progress, suggests an even lower probability might be warranted.\n\n\n*0.02*", "probability": 0.02, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Pepe/will-at-least-10-countries-ratify-a", "market_probability": 0.15466884022427616, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill at least 10 countries ratify a new international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness before 2025?\n \n**Description:**\nThe idea of an international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness has been recently discussed. According to a March 2021 joint article by leaders of 23 countries as well as President of the European Council and Director-General of the World Health Organisation, the main goal of such a treaty would be to:\n\nfoster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.\n\nAccording to the European Council, the following are the anticipated next steps of the planned treaty:\n\nThe intergovernmental negotiating body, tasked with drafting and negotiating this international instrument, will hold its next meeting by 1 August 2022, to discuss progress on a working draft. It will then deliver a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023, with the aim to adopt the instrument by 2024.\n\nThe purpose of this question is to understand the potential of this treaty to be adopted.\n\nWill at least 10 countries ratify a new international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness before 2025?\n\nThis question will resolve as Yes if, by December 31, 2024, at least 10 countries have ratified an new international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness. This question concerns only new treaties, meaning treaties which have not been ratified by any nation as of June 1, 2022.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Manifold in the Wild (2022-10-22): Will at least 10 countries ratify a new international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness before 2025?\\n, 8k, beautiful, illustration, trending on art station, picture of the day, epic composition\n- Nevin Wetherill (2024-04-25): Ah, it sucks I don't think betting this up makes sense. Even this high feels a little optimistic. \n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- \u201cThe next pandemic will not wait for us, whether from a flu virus like H5N1, another coronavirus, or another family of viruses we don\u2019t yet know about,\u201d Dr Tedros told the meeting. ... to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. At the World Health Assembly in June 2024, governments made concrete commitments to complete ... (Date published: Sep 20, 2024)\n- In an historic development, the World Health Assembly, the annual meeting of its 194 member countries, today agreed a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), and made concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest, and possibly in 2024. (Date published: Jun 1, 2024)\n- WHO Member States have ended intensive negotiations aimed at strengthening global capacities to respond to future pandemics and outbreaks in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and agreed to submit outcomes of their work for consideration by the upcoming World Health Assembly, starting Monday. (Date published: May 24, 2024)\n- While Senate ratification followed by Presidential signature is the formal process by which treaties are ratified under the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. President has the option of acceding to a ... (Date published: Apr 1, 2024)\n- A t the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, 25 heads of government issued an extraordinary call for a new international treaty for preventing, preparing for, and responding to pandemics. For two ... (Date published: May 27, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill at least 10 countries ratify a new international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness before 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"WHO pandemic treaty ratification status 2024\"", "search_results": "\u201cThe next pandemic will not wait for us, whether from a flu virus like H5N1, another coronavirus, or another family of viruses we don\u2019t yet know about,\u201d Dr Tedros told the meeting. ... to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. At the World Health Assembly in June 2024, governments made concrete commitments to complete ... (Date published: Sep 20, 2024)\n\nIn an historic development, the World Health Assembly, the annual meeting of its 194 member countries, today agreed a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), and made concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest, and possibly in 2024. (Date published: Jun 1, 2024)\n\nWHO Member States have ended intensive negotiations aimed at strengthening global capacities to respond to future pandemics and outbreaks in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and agreed to submit outcomes of their work for consideration by the upcoming World Health Assembly, starting Monday. (Date published: May 24, 2024)\n\nWhile Senate ratification followed by Presidential signature is the formal process by which treaties are ratified under the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. President has the option of acceding to a ... (Date published: Apr 1, 2024)\n\nA t the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, 25 heads of government issued an extraordinary call for a new international treaty for preventing, preparing for, and responding to pandemics. For two ... (Date published: May 27, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. CM Punk returned to WWE at Survivor Series 2023 after being fired from AEW\n2. He suffered a triceps tear during the 2024 Royal Rumble match\n3. As of July 2024, there were rumors about contract restructuring negotiations\n4. He was scheduled for a match against Drew McIntyre at SummerSlam 2024\n5. Sources from October 2024 mention \"intense contract negotiations\"\n6. Punk is 45 years old\n7. He has a history of controversial departures, including his first WWE exit and AEW firing\n8. The latest news reference is from October 2024, leaving uncertainty about Q4 2024\n\n\n\n1. History of dramatic exits from wrestling companies (8/10)\n2. Recent contract restructuring discussions could indicate tensions (6/10)\n3. Age and injury history could lead to retirement or reduced role conflicts (5/10)\n4. Previous pattern of burning bridges in wrestling industry (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Already survived most of 2024 with WWE through October (9/10)\n2. Successfully returned from injury to compete at SummerSlam (7/10)\n3. WWE likely invested significantly in bringing him back (8/10)\n4. Only needs to stay for ~1 more month from latest information (9/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration is that we only need CM Punk to remain with WWE through December 2024, and we have confirmation of his presence through October. This significantly reduces uncertainty compared to forecasting this at the start of 2024.\n\nThe contract restructuring talks could be concerning, but they didn't prevent his SummerSlam match. Given WWE's investment in bringing him back and the short remaining timeframe, it would be surprising for either party to terminate the relationship with just weeks remaining in the year.\n\nWhile Punk's history of dramatic exits is notable, the circumstances differ here - he's older, potentially more mature, and this might be his last major run in wrestling.\n\n\n0.85\n\n\nLet's examine this from a Bayesian perspective. The prior for a wrestler remaining with WWE through a full year, given they're actively performing, is probably around 0.9. However, Punk's specific history suggests a lower prior.\n\nThe fact that he's already made it through most of 2024 is crucial - we're not predicting a full year, but rather just the final weeks. This significantly reduces uncertainty.\n\nKey considerations for the final probability:\n1. The short remaining timeframe strongly favors retention\n2. Contract discussions earlier in the year were resolved successfully\n3. Recent sources don't indicate acute problems\n4. The base rate of wrestlers leaving in December specifically is likely very low\n\nHowever, we should maintain some uncertainty due to:\n1. Punk's unpredictable history\n2. Incomplete information about Q4 2024\n3. Possible unknown contract terms or deadlines\n\n\n*0.88*", "probability": 0.88, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/TiredCliche/will-cm-punk-remain-in-the-wwe-thro", "market_probability": 0.9690573146696037, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill CM Punk remain in the WWE throughout 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nWill resolve NO if CM Punk is officially released by WWE before 2025. Resolves YES assuming he is still signed. More complicated scenarios may resolve N/A.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- The pro wrestling rumor mill is buzzing about CM Punk\u2019s WWE contract status, with the two sides apparently being in the process of restructuring his deal.Punk is about to return to the ring for a big money match against Drew McIntyre at SummerSlam, and some folks have made negative assumptions about Punk\u2019s motives as a result of these rumors. (Date published: Jul 25, 2024)\n- CM Punk\u2019s return at 2023 WWE Survivor Series was a significant event, and he appears to be committed to WWE. However, recent rumors have sparked speculation about his contract status. (Date published: Jul 25, 2024)\n- Former multi-time WWE World Champion CM Punk opened up about the intense contract negotiations leading to his shocking return to WWE at Survivor Series.Punk made his triumphant comeback in front ... (Date published: Oct 3, 2024)\n- CM Punk's WWE return came just months after he was fired from AEW amid controversy. There was fan speculation on the 45-year-old possibly knocking his former employer during Monday's promo . (Date published: Nov 29, 2023)\n- CM Punk returned to WWE at Survivor Series 2023. His first televised match upon returning was the Men's Royal Rumble match where he, unfortunately, tore his right tricep. ... 2024 18:46 GMT ... (Date published: Jul 24, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill CM Punk remain in the WWE throughout 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "CM Punk WWE contract status 2024", "search_results": "The pro wrestling rumor mill is buzzing about CM Punk\u2019s WWE contract status, with the two sides apparently being in the process of restructuring his deal.Punk is about to return to the ring for a big money match against Drew McIntyre at SummerSlam, and some folks have made negative assumptions about Punk\u2019s motives as a result of these rumors. (Date published: Jul 25, 2024)\n\nCM Punk\u2019s return at 2023 WWE Survivor Series was a significant event, and he appears to be committed to WWE. However, recent rumors have sparked speculation about his contract status. (Date published: Jul 25, 2024)\n\nFormer multi-time WWE World Champion CM Punk opened up about the intense contract negotiations leading to his shocking return to WWE at Survivor Series.Punk made his triumphant comeback in front ... (Date published: Oct 3, 2024)\n\nCM Punk's WWE return came just months after he was fired from AEW amid controversy. There was fan speculation on the 45-year-old possibly knocking his former employer during Monday's promo . (Date published: Nov 29, 2023)\n\nCM Punk returned to WWE at Survivor Series 2023. His first televised match upon returning was the Men's Royal Rumble match where he, unfortunately, tore his right tricep. ... 2024 18:46 GMT ... (Date published: Jul 24, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment president David Haddad stated Hogwarts Legacy 2 is a \"very big priority\" (Nov 2024)\n2. The original Hogwarts Legacy sold over 12 million copies in 2023\n3. Multiple sources from November 2024 indicate development is already underway\n4. The game has forgone DLC in favor of moving straight to a sequel\n5. The question allows for \"spiritual sequels\" that target the same audience even if set in different time periods\n6. Only one month remains until the end of 2024\n7. Warner Bros. has explicitly begun discussing the sequel publicly\n8. The gaming industry typically makes major announcements at specific events or through carefully planned marketing\n\n\n\n1. With only one month left in 2024, the window for announcement is extremely narrow (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Game companies often prefer to announce titles at major gaming events, and no major events remain in 2024 (Strength: 6/10)\n3. Despite development being confirmed, WB might want to wait until they have more concrete materials to show before a formal announcement (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\n1. WB executives are already publicly discussing the sequel's development, suggesting an announcement is imminent (Strength: 9/10)\n2. The massive success of the original creates strong business incentive for a quick announcement to maintain market momentum (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Holiday season is a common time for gaming announcements to capitalize on attention and spending (Strength: 5/10)\n4. The clear confirmation of development reduces risk of announcement plans falling through (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here is timing - we have strong confirmation of the sequel's development and priority status, but very little time left in 2024. However, the recent nature of WB's public comments (November 2024) suggests they're beginning a coordinated communication strategy about the sequel.\n\nWhen executives start discussing projects publicly, formal announcements typically follow relatively quickly to capitalize on the generated interest. The holiday season timing also provides a natural marketing opportunity.\n\nThe lack of remaining major gaming events is less concerning given modern companies frequently make announcements through their own channels or social media.\n\nThe permission for \"spiritual sequels\" in the resolution criteria reduces uncertainty about what qualifies as an announcement.\n\n\n0.75\n\n\nExamining this forecast through the lens of calibration:\n\nThe key consideration is whether one month is sufficient time for an announcement given WB's recent public discussion of the sequel. Looking at similar cases in the gaming industry, when executives begin publicly confirming development, formal announcements typically follow within 1-3 months.\n\nThe prior for game announcements in any given month might be relatively low, but we have strong evidence that this specific case is in an active pre-announcement phase. The recent statements from WB executives represent a significant update from the base rate.\n\nA potential bias to check is assuming that because development is confirmed, announcement must be imminent. However, the specific timing of these statements, combined with the holiday season and the clear business incentive to maintain momentum, suggests this isn't just wishful thinking.\n\nThe resolution criteria allowing for \"spiritual sequels\" provides additional flexibility that slightly increases the probability.\n\n\n*0.82*", "probability": 0.82, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/AshleyDavies/will-a-sequel-to-hogwarts-legacy-be", "market_probability": 0.677486968002069, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill a sequel to Hogwarts Legacy be announced before 2025?\n \n**Description:**\nSimilar to https://manifold.markets/MaePole/will-there-be-a-sequel-for-hogwarts?r=QXNobGV5RGF2aWVz but with a longer time-span.\n\nAs an important nuance, I will resolve YES if a spiritual sequel is announced, even if it isn't a to-the-letter sequel. If the game was clearly approved on the back of Hogwarts Legacy, and is clearly marketed at the same audience, it would qualify, even if it's e.g. set in a different time period.\n\nIn the event an announcement seems on-the-fence in this respect, I'll determine some reasonably fair way to poll for community opinion at the time.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Hogwarts Legacy fans got reassuring news from David Haddad, president of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. In an interview with Variety, Haddad shared that Hogwarts Legacy 2 is a \"very big priority\" for Warner Bros. executives and confirmed its current development.Unsurprisingly, the investment in Hogwarts Legacy's sequel is due to the massive response to the game and fan enthusiasm for ... (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n- While there are currently no plans for DLC, the lack of additional content could signify the development of a sequel, as rumors suggest Avalanche Software is already working on Hogwarts Legacy 2. (Date published: Jan 8, 2024)\n- Warner Bros. had a very busy year in 2023, and it was also very successful. A major reason for that is because of Hogwarts Legacy, which released that year on multiple platforms, including the Nintendo Switch, and ultimately sold more than 12,000,000 copies.So, it isn\u2019t all that surprising that Warner Bros. is wanting to keep the momentum going with more Harry Potter and Hogwarts Legacy content. (Date published: Nov 5, 2024)\n- A new article from Variety says that Hogwarts Legacy 2 is already being worked on, as it appears the original game has forgone all potential DLC and is leaping straight into a sequel. This is ... (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n- A sequel to the popular Harry Potter action-adventure game Hogwarts Legacy is a high priority for Warner Bros., with the company revealing the first details about this follow-up in a recent interview. (Date published: Nov 5, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill a sequel to Hogwarts Legacy be announced before 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Hogwarts Legacy sequel development status 2024", "search_results": "Hogwarts Legacy fans got reassuring news from David Haddad, president of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. In an interview with Variety, Haddad shared that Hogwarts Legacy 2 is a \"very big priority\" for Warner Bros. executives and confirmed its current development.Unsurprisingly, the investment in Hogwarts Legacy's sequel is due to the massive response to the game and fan enthusiasm for ... (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n\nWhile there are currently no plans for DLC, the lack of additional content could signify the development of a sequel, as rumors suggest Avalanche Software is already working on Hogwarts Legacy 2. (Date published: Jan 8, 2024)\n\nWarner Bros. had a very busy year in 2023, and it was also very successful. A major reason for that is because of Hogwarts Legacy, which released that year on multiple platforms, including the Nintendo Switch, and ultimately sold more than 12,000,000 copies.So, it isn\u2019t all that surprising that Warner Bros. is wanting to keep the momentum going with more Harry Potter and Hogwarts Legacy content. (Date published: Nov 5, 2024)\n\nA new article from Variety says that Hogwarts Legacy 2 is already being worked on, as it appears the original game has forgone all potential DLC and is leaping straight into a sequel. This is ... (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n\nA sequel to the popular Harry Potter action-adventure game Hogwarts Legacy is a high priority for Warner Bros., with the company revealing the first details about this follow-up in a recent interview. (Date published: Nov 5, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Multiple major news sources (Reuters, The Information) reported in November 2023 that OpenAI researchers sent a letter to the board about an AI breakthrough\n2. These reports came during/after the dramatic events of Sam Altman's brief removal as CEO\n3. The letter was reportedly about \"Q*\", described as a potential breakthrough in AI capabilities\n4. This news broke very shortly after the events themselves, when media attention was intense\n5. Multiple independent sources were cited in these reports\n6. The letter was reportedly sent by \"several staff researchers\"\n7. The timing coincided with Altman's temporary removal from OpenAI\n8. No official confirmation or denial was issued by OpenAI regarding the existence of the letter\n9. The timeline places the letter's alleged delivery before Altman's brief removal\n\n\n\n1. During periods of intense media coverage, unconfirmed reports can spread rapidly without proper verification (8/10)\n2. Neither OpenAI nor board members have officially confirmed the letter's existence (6/10)\n3. The timing of the story's release during peak drama could suggest opportunistic reporting or conflation of different events (7/10)\n4. Tech journalism sometimes overstates or misinterprets internal communications about research progress (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Multiple reputable news organizations reported the story independently with specific details (9/10)\n2. The reporting cites multiple sources and provides consistent details across different outlets (8/10)\n3. The timeline and context fit logically with known events around Altman's removal (7/10)\n4. No denial was issued by OpenAI or board members despite the high-profile nature of the claim (6/10)\n5. The specificity of details (multiple researchers, timing before ouster) suggests genuine insider information (7/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is the credibility of multiple independent news reports versus the lack of official confirmation. The reports emerged during a period of intense scrutiny and journalistic investigation, which cuts both ways - there was both stronger motivation for thorough reporting and increased risk of rushed publication.\n\nThe specificity of the reports and consistency across sources is particularly compelling. While tech journalism can be sensationalistic, Reuters in particular has a strong reputation for factual reporting and typically requires multiple source confirmation.\n\nThe lack of denial from OpenAI is noteworthy given their ability to correct misinformation, though this could be explained by a policy of not commenting on internal matters.\n\n\n0.85\n\n\nExamining potential biases:\n- The dramatic nature of events could have led to overemphasis on the Q* narrative\n- However, the specific claim about a letter is more concrete than general speculation about breakthroughs\n- Multiple independent confirmations reduce the likelihood of complete fabrication\n- The technical press generally maintains higher standards for factual claims about corporate events versus speculation about technology capabilities\n\nBase rate considerations:\n- Letters to boards about technical concerns are not uncommon in tech companies\n- The specific circumstances (AI safety concerns, board dynamics) make this type of communication more likely\n- The reporting contains verifiable details that would be risky to fabricate\n\nThe consistency of reporting, multiple sources, and specific details suggest this is very likely true, though there's still some uncertainty given the lack of official confirmation.\n\n\n*0.88*", "probability": 0.88, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/jacksonpolack/did-the-board-of-openai-recieve-a-l", "market_probability": 0.48645795548997545, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nDid the board of OpenAI recieve a letter about the Q* AI 'breakthrough'?\n \n**Description:**\nResolves to my judgement (or judgement of a council of moderators if disputed) of the truth once the dust settles and news stops coming out.\n\nhttps://t.co/sc2d3NPoxB\n\nExclusive: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO outster -sources\n\n[image]Resolves to \n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- jackson polack (2024-02-12): Anyone got any ideas on how to resolve this?\n- Bayesian (2024-09-17): I came around to thinking this seems decently likely. they probably got some good early results that hinted at the possibility of a pretty big improvement in math and coding ability and the board received info about that, basically. that affecting their interactions slightly but not in a transparent, clear way also seems likely. but ultimately we probably won't hear more than this for a while\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Nov 22 (Reuters) - Ahead of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman\u2019s four days in exile, several staff researchers wrote a letter to the board of directors warning of a powerful artificial intelligence discovery ... (Date published: Nov 22, 2023)\n- Ahead of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman\u2019s four days in exile, several staff researchers sent the board of directors a letter warning of a powerful artificial intelligence discovery that they said could ... (Date published: Nov 23, 2023)\n- The Information also reported details about the project.. One of the sources told Reuters that some OpenAI staff believed Q* could be major breakthrough in the company's goal of achieving ... (Date published: Nov 23, 2023)\n- By Anna Tong, Jeffrey Dastin and Krystal Hu. Nov 22 (Reuters) - Ahead of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman\u2019s four days in exile, several staff researchers sent the board of directors a letter warning of a ... (Date published: Nov 23, 2023)\n- A potential breakthrough in the field of artificial intelligence may have contributed to Sam Altman\u2019s recent ouster as CEO of OpenAI. According to a Reuters report citing two sources acquainted ... (Date published: Nov 23, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nDid the board of OpenAI recieve a letter about the Q* AI 'breakthrough'?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "OpenAI Q* AI breakthrough board warning details", "search_results": "Nov 22 (Reuters) - Ahead of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman\u2019s four days in exile, several staff researchers wrote a letter to the board of directors warning of a powerful artificial intelligence discovery ... (Date published: Nov 22, 2023)\n\nAhead of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman\u2019s four days in exile, several staff researchers sent the board of directors a letter warning of a powerful artificial intelligence discovery that they said could ... (Date published: Nov 23, 2023)\n\nThe Information also reported details about the project.. One of the sources told Reuters that some OpenAI staff believed Q* could be major breakthrough in the company's goal of achieving ... (Date published: Nov 23, 2023)\n\nBy Anna Tong, Jeffrey Dastin and Krystal Hu. Nov 22 (Reuters) - Ahead of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman\u2019s four days in exile, several staff researchers sent the board of directors a letter warning of a ... (Date published: Nov 23, 2023)\n\nA potential breakthrough in the field of artificial intelligence may have contributed to Sam Altman\u2019s recent ouster as CEO of OpenAI. According to a Reuters report citing two sources acquainted ... (Date published: Nov 23, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Israel has successfully rescued 8 hostages through military operations between October 2023 and August 2024\n2. Most recent rescue was in August 2024 - an Israeli Arab found in a tunnel in southern Gaza\n3. A significant operation in June 2024 rescued 4 hostages in one mission\n4. As of market creation, 108 hostages remained in Gaza (many already deceased)\n5. Hamas had lost contact with some hostages according to Israeli news (August 2024)\n6. Rescue operations typically involve extensive preparation and substantial military resources\n7. The market closes December 31, 2024, giving ~1 month for resolution\n\n\n\n1. Very short time window remaining (only 1 month) severely limits opportunities (9/10)\n2. Previous successful rescues may have targeted \"easier\" cases, leaving more difficult situations (6/10)\n3. Hamas likely increased security measures after previous successful rescues (7/10)\n4. Many remaining hostages may already be deceased, reducing the pool of possible rescues (8/10)\n5. Lost contact between Hamas and some hostages suggests possible deaths or difficult-to-locate situations (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Israel has demonstrated capability with 8 successful rescues, including recent ones (7/10)\n2. Intelligence gathering is ongoing and cumulative, potentially enabling new operations (6/10)\n3. Political pressure to rescue remaining hostages remains extremely high (5/10)\n4. Hamas's organizational structure has been significantly damaged, potentially creating opportunities (6/10)\n5. Previous success in June/August 2024 shows sustained capability for rescue operations (6/10)\n\n\n\nThe extremely short remaining time window is the dominant factor here. While Israel has demonstrated both capability and will to conduct rescue operations, one month is a very constrained period for:\n- Intelligence gathering\n- Operation planning\n- Execution windows with favorable conditions\n- Multiple attempts if needed\n\nThe base rate from previous months suggests roughly 1-2 successful rescue operations per quarter, but this is likely front-loaded with easier cases. The remaining cases may be more difficult, and Hamas has likely adapted their security measures.\n\nA key consideration is that this is a disjunctive condition - only one success is needed - but the time constraint severely limits the number of possible attempts.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing this forecast:\n\nThe base rate of successful rescues over the past year suggests approximately 8 rescues in 12 months, or about 0.67 per month. However, this is likely an overestimate for current conditions because:\n- Earlier operations targeted more accessible hostages\n- Hamas has adapted their security measures\n- Many remaining hostages may be deceased\n- December may have additional operational constraints (weather, holidays)\n\nThe very short time window is crucial - while Israel has demonstrated capability, rescue operations require substantial preparation time and favorable conditions. One month is an extremely tight window for completing the full cycle of intelligence gathering, planning, and execution.\n\nThe disjunctive nature (only one success needed) partially counterbalances these factors, but the severe time constraint dominates. 15% appears reasonable given these considerations - it's low but not negligible, reflecting both demonstrated Israeli capabilities and the severe time constraint.\n\n\n*0.15*", "probability": 0.15, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Shai/will-israel-free-another-living-hos-m351fcjtjq", "market_probability": 0.6379670795312093, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Israel free another living hostage by military means by 2025?\n \n**Description:**\nResolves YES if a living hostage crosses into Israel as a result of an operation by Israeli security forces.\n\n-------------\n\nAt the time of market creation there are 108 hostages in Gaza (many of them already dead).\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Shai (2024-08-27): I'm buying more NO than I would otherwise to get some liquidity into the market since I was too cheap to pay 1000 mana when opening. \n- Shai (2024-08-27): Israeli news: Hamas has lost contact with some of the hostages:\\nhttps://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2024_q3/Article-b6946c211059191026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Hostages rescued in an IDF operation in the Gaza Strip on June 8: Shlomi Ziv (top left), Andrey Kozlov (top right), Almog Meir (bottom left), and Noa Argamani. (Date published: Jun 8, 2024)\n- Previous hostage rescue operations in Gaza have taken place overnight. Noa Argamani is embraced by her father, Yaakov, at Sheba Medical Center after being rescued from Hamas captivity, June 8 ... (Date published: Jun 8, 2024)\n- RAMAT GAN, Israel \u2014 New details emerged Monday about the rescue of four hostages \u2014 a high-risk operation that proved to be Israel's most successful of the eight-month war, but that brought ... (Date published: Jun 10, 2024)\n- Israel\u2019s operation to rescue four hostages took weeks of preparation and involved hundreds of personnel, its military said. But the mission began with a trail of destruction in central Gaza and ... (Date published: Jun 9, 2024)\n- The Israeli military said it had found a 52-year-old Israeli Arab in a tunnel in southern Gaza. He is the eighth hostage to be rescued alive of the approximately 250 abducted 10 months ago. (Date published: Aug 27, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Israel free another living hostage by military means by 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Israel Gaza hostage rescue operations current status\"", "search_results": "Hostages rescued in an IDF operation in the Gaza Strip on June 8: Shlomi Ziv (top left), Andrey Kozlov (top right), Almog Meir (bottom left), and Noa Argamani. (Date published: Jun 8, 2024)\n\nPrevious hostage rescue operations in Gaza have taken place overnight. Noa Argamani is embraced by her father, Yaakov, at Sheba Medical Center after being rescued from Hamas captivity, June 8 ... (Date published: Jun 8, 2024)\n\nRAMAT GAN, Israel \u2014 New details emerged Monday about the rescue of four hostages \u2014 a high-risk operation that proved to be Israel's most successful of the eight-month war, but that brought ... (Date published: Jun 10, 2024)\n\nIsrael\u2019s operation to rescue four hostages took weeks of preparation and involved hundreds of personnel, its military said. But the mission began with a trail of destruction in central Gaza and ... (Date published: Jun 9, 2024)\n\nThe Israeli military said it had found a 52-year-old Israeli Arab in a tunnel in southern Gaza. He is the eighth hostage to be rescued alive of the approximately 250 abducted 10 months ago. (Date published: Aug 27, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me help forecast this question step by step.\n\n\n- Hunter Biden has been convicted of federal felony gun and tax crimes\n- President Joe Biden pardoned Hunter Biden for these convictions in December 2024\n- The pardon covered offenses charged or prosecuted through December 1, 2024\n- Prior to the pardon, under sentencing guidelines, Hunter Biden faced:\n * 1+ year for the gun case\n * 2-3 years for tax-related charges\n- Hunter Biden became the first child of a sitting US president to be convicted of a crime\n\n\n\n1. President Biden has already pardoned Hunter Biden, which means he won't serve any prison sentence for the current convictions (Strength: 10/10)\n2. The pardon covers all offenses through December 1, 2024, making it impossible for previous charges to result in confinement (Strength: 9/10)\n3. With only one month left in 2024 after the pardon, there is limited time for new charges to be brought and sentenced (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Theoretically, new charges could be filed for offenses committed after December 1, 2024 (Strength: 2/10)\n2. There could be state-level charges not covered by the federal pardon (Strength: 3/10)\n3. The political scrutiny might lead to aggressive prosecution of any new offenses (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is timing and the presidential pardon. The pardon essentially nullifies any possibility of confinement for offenses through December 1, 2024. For Hunter Biden to receive >50 months confinement, we would need:\n\n1. New charges for offenses committed after December 1, 2024\n2. Extremely rapid prosecution and sentencing (within 30 days)\n3. A sentence severity that exceeds typical guidelines\n\nThe combination of these requirements makes the scenario highly improbable. The time constraint alone makes it nearly impossible, as criminal proceedings typically take months or years, not days.\n\n\n0.001\n\n\nLet's sanity check this probability:\n\n1. The presidential pardon is a definitive event that eliminates most possible paths to confinement\n2. The time window (December 1-31, 2024) is extremely narrow\n3. Criminal justice processes operate slowly:\n - Investigation time\n - Grand jury proceedings\n - Trial preparation\n - Court scheduling\n - Sentencing hearings\n\nEven if new charges were filed immediately after December 1, it would be virtually impossible to reach sentencing by December 31. The only scenario where this could happen would be an immediate guilty plea to serious charges, which is extremely unlikely.\n\nThe base rate for rapid criminal proceedings (investigation to sentencing in under 30 days) is essentially zero in federal cases. Combined with the pardon's scope and timing, this supports a probability very close to zero.\n\n\n*0.001*", "probability": 0.001, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/datachef/will-hunter-biden-receive-a-combine", "market_probability": 0.07093066714748159, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Hunter Biden receive a combined sentence of greater than 50 months confinement?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Under the relevant sentencing guidelines, Hunter Biden appears to face a year or more in prison in the gun case and two to three ... Donald Trump 2024, Hunter Biden, David Weiss, Columns, Column ...\n- Hunter Biden is the first child of a sitting US president to be convicted of a crime. Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, on June 10, 2024 in Wilmington, Delaware. (Date published: Oct 29, 2024)\n- WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 President Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, on Sunday night, sparing the younger Biden a possible prison sentence for federal felony gun and tax convictions and reversing his past promises not to use the extraordinary powers of the presidency for the benefit of his family members.. The Democratic president had previously said he would not pardon his son or commute his ...\n- President Joe Biden announced Sunday that he pardoned his son Hunter Biden, who faced sentencing this month on gun crime and tax convictions, marking a reversal as he prepares to leave office.\n- ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN ... 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Hunter Biden receive a combined sentence of greater than 50 months confinement?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Hunter Biden sentencing guidelines 2024", "search_results": "Under the relevant sentencing guidelines, Hunter Biden appears to face a year or more in prison in the gun case and two to three ... Donald Trump 2024, Hunter Biden, David Weiss, Columns, Column ...\n\nHunter Biden is the first child of a sitting US president to be convicted of a crime. Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, on June 10, 2024 in Wilmington, Delaware. (Date published: Oct 29, 2024)\n\nWASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 President Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, on Sunday night, sparing the younger Biden a possible prison sentence for federal felony gun and tax convictions and reversing his past promises not to use the extraordinary powers of the presidency for the benefit of his family members.. The Democratic president had previously said he would not pardon his son or commute his ...\n\nPresident Joe Biden announced Sunday that he pardoned his son Hunter Biden, who faced sentencing this month on gun crime and tax convictions, marking a reversal as he prepares to leave office.\n\nROBERT HUNTER BIDEN ... 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n- George Soros is alive as of May 2023, explicitly confirmed by himself and his spokesperson\n- He actively denied death rumors in May 2023 and was described as \"healthy\"\n- Soros was born on August 12, 1930, making him 93 years old\n- He has remained active in public life and philanthropy into his 90s\n- The forecast window is roughly 1 month (from Dec 1 to Dec 31, 2024)\n- Annual mortality rates increase significantly with advanced age\n- High net worth individuals often have access to superior medical care\n\n\n\n- Soros was confirmed healthy and active as recently as May 2023 (7/10)\n- His wealth enables access to world-class medical care and monitoring (6/10)\n- The forecast window is very short - just one month (8/10)\n- He has demonstrated remarkable longevity and resilience already (5/10)\n\n\n\n- At 93-94 years old, mortality rates are extremely high regardless of health status (9/10)\n- Each additional year of age significantly increases mortality risk (8/10)\n- Even excellent medical care cannot fully mitigate extreme old age risks (7/10)\n- The question includes nearly all of 2024, giving more time for health deterioration (6/10)\n\n\n\nLet's approach this systematically:\n1. The base mortality rate for 93-94 year olds is very high, around 25-30% annually\n2. Wealth and medical access provide some mitigation, but cannot fundamentally alter the biological reality of extreme old age\n3. The key is to adjust the annual mortality rate for:\n - Superior medical care (reduction)\n - Confirmed good health as of May 2023 (reduction)\n - Progressive increase in mortality risk with each passing month (increase)\n4. Then convert to the specific timeframe (one month)\n\nThe fact that he was healthy in May 2023 is becoming less relevant as time passes. By December 2024, that information will be quite dated.\n\n\n0.28\n\n\nReviewing my analysis:\n- Annual mortality rates for 94-year-olds are approximately 25-30%\n- His wealth and access to care might reduce this by 20-30%\n- However, we're looking at the full year of 2024\n- The compound effect of advancing age during this period is significant\n- Need to consider that surviving to 93+ already suggests robust constitution\n\nThe key question is whether my probability adequately reflects:\n1. The length of the forecast period (full year plus one month)\n2. The extreme age factor\n3. The demonstrated resilience of the individual\n4. The reality that even excellent medical care has diminishing returns at this age\n\nAfter consideration, I believe my initial estimate may be slightly low given the time period involved and the extreme age factor.\n\n\n*0.35*", "probability": 0.35, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/GandyaBalkanski/will-george-soros-leave-this-world", "market_probability": 0.18276023715445236, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill George Soros leave this world before end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Caleb (2024-01-06): Misread this as George Santos lmao\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Soros has once again been targeted with baseless online claims suggesting he died of a heart attack, despite no credible reporting to corroborate the rumor. (Date published: May 15, 2023)\n- Billionaire financier George Soros said he is \u201calive and healthy\u201d on May 15, 2023, after viral posts on social media falsely claimed he died after a heart attack. Scores of social media posts claiming Soros died, including here and here, prompted confusion among users. (Date published: May 15, 2023)\n- Social media posts say that billionaire financier George Soros died in mid-May 2023 after experiencing a heart attack. But this is a hoax; Soros debunked the claims on his personal Twitter account and a spokesperson at his foundation confirmed the rumors are false. (Date published: May 16, 2023)\n- \"George Soros is alive and healthy,\" spokesperson Michael Vachon said when we reached out for comment about that claim. \"He did not have a heart attack. Or any other health issue.\" (Date published: May 15, 2023)\n- The billionaire financier confirmed he was in good health following viral rumours claiming he\u2019d died of a heart attack. Billionaire financier George Soros took to Twitter on Monday to declare he\u2019s in good health, following a viral social media rumour that he\u2019d suffered a fatal heart attack. (Date published: May 15, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill George Soros leave this world before end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "George Soros health condition 2024", "search_results": "Soros has once again been targeted with baseless online claims suggesting he died of a heart attack, despite no credible reporting to corroborate the rumor. (Date published: May 15, 2023)\n\nBillionaire financier George Soros said he is \u201calive and healthy\u201d on May 15, 2023, after viral posts on social media falsely claimed he died after a heart attack. Scores of social media posts claiming Soros died, including here and here, prompted confusion among users. (Date published: May 15, 2023)\n\nSocial media posts say that billionaire financier George Soros died in mid-May 2023 after experiencing a heart attack. But this is a hoax; Soros debunked the claims on his personal Twitter account and a spokesperson at his foundation confirmed the rumors are false. (Date published: May 16, 2023)\n\n\"George Soros is alive and healthy,\" spokesperson Michael Vachon said when we reached out for comment about that claim. \"He did not have a heart attack. Or any other health issue.\" (Date published: May 15, 2023)\n\nThe billionaire financier confirmed he was in good health following viral rumours claiming he\u2019d died of a heart attack. Billionaire financier George Soros took to Twitter on Monday to declare he\u2019s in good health, following a viral social media rumour that he\u2019d suffered a fatal heart attack. (Date published: May 15, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Major AI companies and startups are actively working on video generation capabilities in 2024\n2. OpenAI released Sora, a text-to-video generator, in 2024\n3. By May 2024, 65% of organizations were regularly using generative AI (according to McKinsey)\n4. Midjourney and Stability AI (major text-to-image players) have entered the video space\n5. Leading AI models (GPT-4, Gemini) are multimodal, handling text, images, and video\n6. Video generation technology has seen significant advancement throughout 2024\n7. High-quality video generation (1080p) with cinematic styles is achievable (e.g., Veo)\n8. The question specifically asks about image-to-video conversion for human subjects, including rotation, walking, and clothing changes\n\n\n\n1. Image-to-video manipulation of human subjects is more complex than general video generation, requiring precise understanding of human anatomy and movement (8/10)\n2. Clothing changes require understanding of fabric physics and complex transformations (7/10)\n3. The market closes December 31, 2024, leaving limited time for breakthroughs from today's date (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Multiple major players (OpenAI, Midjourney, Stability) are actively working on video technology (9/10)\n2. Significant progress has already been made in video generation throughout 2024 (8/10)\n3. The widespread adoption of generative AI indicates substantial resources and momentum in the field (7/10)\n4. The specific tasks (rotation, walking, clothing changes) are relatively constrained compared to general video generation (6/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is whether the specific capabilities requested (rotation, walking, clothing changes) will be achievable with sufficient quality by year-end. The search results indicate substantial progress in video generation throughout 2024, with major players achieving high-quality outputs.\n\nThe technology appears to be advancing rapidly, with multiple companies competing in the space. The specific tasks requested are somewhat constrained forms of video manipulation, which makes them more likely to be achieved than general video generation capabilities.\n\nThe timing is particularly important - we're looking at the end of 2024, and the search results indicate significant progress has already been made throughout the year. The momentum and resources in the field suggest continued rapid advancement.\n\n\n0.85\n\n\nLet me conduct some additional sanity checks:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: Previous technological breakthroughs in AI have often happened faster than expected, particularly when multiple major companies are competing\n2. The requested capabilities are more specific and constrained than general video generation\n3. The search results show concrete evidence of high-quality video generation already being achieved\n4. The question doesn't specify perfect quality - reasonable quality would likely suffice\n\nHowever, I should consider:\n- The complexity of human motion and clothing physics\n- The possibility of technical limitations we're not aware of\n- The relatively short timeframe remaining\n\nGiven these considerations, I'll slightly adjust my probability downward to reflect the technical challenges while still maintaining high confidence based on the rapid progress and focused competition in the field.\n\n\n*0.82*", "probability": 0.82, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/infiniteErgodicity/will-ai-image-video-be-pwrfl-enough", "market_probability": 0.790732184222571, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill AI image=> video be pwrfl enough to make a person in an image rotate/walk/change clothes by EOY 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- If 2023 was the year the world discovered generative AI (gen AI), 2024 is the year organizations truly began using\u2014and deriving business value from\u2014this new technology.In the latest McKinsey Global Survey on AI, 65 percent of respondents report that their organizations are regularly using gen AI, nearly double the percentage from our previous survey just ten months ago. (Date published: May 30, 2024)\n- Veo, our most advanced video generation model, creates high-quality 1080p videos with cinematic styles. Imagen 3, our highest quality text-to-image model, generates photorealistic images with fewer artifacts. Collaborations with Donald Glover, Wyclef Jean, Marc Rebillet, and Justin Tranter showcase the creative potential of our AI tools. (Date published: May 14, 2024)\n- In 2024, we saw unprecedented innovation at the intersection of AI and video. OpenAI introduced Sora, its groundbreaking text-to-video generator.And a number of companies \u2014 Vimeo included \u2014 rolled out new AI video features to streamline workflows for businesses and individual creators.. But these new technologies also brought growing pains, particularly as companies navigate their ... (Date published: Nov 19, 2024)\n- Midjourney and Stability AI, the firms behind two of the most popular text-to-image models, are now working on video as well. A number of companies are racing to make a business on the back of ... (Date published: Mar 28, 2024)\n- State-of-the-art AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini, are multimodal, meaning they can process not only text but images and even videos. This new capability could unlock a whole bunch of new apps. (Date published: Jan 4, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill AI image=> video be pwrfl enough to make a person in an image rotate/walk/change clothes by EOY 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"state of AI image to video generation capabilities 2024\"", "search_results": "If 2023 was the year the world discovered generative AI (gen AI), 2024 is the year organizations truly began using\u2014and deriving business value from\u2014this new technology.In the latest McKinsey Global Survey on AI, 65 percent of respondents report that their organizations are regularly using gen AI, nearly double the percentage from our previous survey just ten months ago. (Date published: May 30, 2024)\n\nVeo, our most advanced video generation model, creates high-quality 1080p videos with cinematic styles. Imagen 3, our highest quality text-to-image model, generates photorealistic images with fewer artifacts. Collaborations with Donald Glover, Wyclef Jean, Marc Rebillet, and Justin Tranter showcase the creative potential of our AI tools. (Date published: May 14, 2024)\n\nIn 2024, we saw unprecedented innovation at the intersection of AI and video. OpenAI introduced Sora, its groundbreaking text-to-video generator.And a number of companies \u2014 Vimeo included \u2014 rolled out new AI video features to streamline workflows for businesses and individual creators.. But these new technologies also brought growing pains, particularly as companies navigate their ... (Date published: Nov 19, 2024)\n\nMidjourney and Stability AI, the firms behind two of the most popular text-to-image models, are now working on video as well. A number of companies are racing to make a business on the back of ... (Date published: Mar 28, 2024)\n\nState-of-the-art AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini, are multimodal, meaning they can process not only text but images and even videos. This new capability could unlock a whole bunch of new apps. (Date published: Jan 4, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me approach this step by step.\n\n\n1. Elon Musk has been actively participating in political events in late 2024, particularly in Pennsylvania\n2. He made appearances at Trump rallies and town halls in October-November 2024\n3. Based on the search results, his public appearances seem focused on political endorsements and business-related events\n4. As CEO of multiple major companies (Tesla, SpaceX, X), his time is likely highly structured and scheduled\n5. The question is asking about meeting Musk by 2024, with only 30 days remaining in the year from today's date\n6. Public figures of Musk's status typically have extensive security teams and restricted access\n7. Most interactions with Musk would require either:\n - Attending an event where he's present\n - Having business/professional reasons to meet him\n - Random encounter in a location he frequents\n\n\n\n1. Extremely limited timeframe (only 30 days left in 2024) (Strength: 9/10)\n2. High-profile figures like Musk have strict security and scheduling protocols (Strength: 8/10)\n3. No indication of any planned events or circumstances that would create an opportunity for meeting (Strength: 7/10)\n4. Random encounters with billionaire CEOs are extremely rare (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Musk is currently making more public appearances than usual due to political involvement (Strength: 4/10)\n2. He's been specifically appearing in accessible venues like town halls (Strength: 3/10)\n3. His increased public visibility might create more opportunities for chance encounters (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe core consideration here is probability of meeting a highly protected, busy public figure within a very short timeframe. Even with his increased public appearances, several factors make this extremely unlikely:\n\n1. Time constraint is severe - only 30 days left\n2. No indication of any special access or circumstances that would facilitate a meeting\n3. Even at public events, actually meeting (as opposed to seeing) Musk would require getting past security and catching his attention\n\nThe base rate for random individuals meeting Musk must be extremely low - likely well below 0.1% per month even for people actively trying to meet him. The recent increase in public appearances might raise this slightly, but not dramatically enough to overcome the fundamental improbability.\n\n\n0.001\n\n\nReviewing this estimate:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: Even among people who actively try to meet Musk (attending his events, working in related industries, etc.), very few succeed. For a random individual with no specified special access or circumstances, the probability must be vanishingly small.\n\n2. Time horizon: With only 30 days left, even if someone had a plan to try to meet him, the window of opportunity is extremely narrow.\n\n3. Security protocols: High-profile figures like Musk, especially during political appearances, have multiple layers of security making casual encounters nearly impossible.\n\n4. Definition of \"meeting\": If we're considering a genuine interaction (not just being in the same room or seeing him from afar), the probability decreases further.\n\nMy initial estimate of 0.001 (1 in 1000) might actually be too high given these factors. A more realistic probability might be even lower, perhaps around 1 in 5000-10000, considering the extreme unlikelihood of meeting someone of his status in such a short timeframe without any special circumstances indicated.\n\n\n*0.0002*", "probability": 0.0002, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/MarcusAurelius/will-i-have-met-elon-musk-by-2024", "market_probability": 0.10354764741483939, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill I have met Elon Musk by 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- (0:00) Besties intro Elon Musk!(4:01) The Battle of Free Speech(13:03) Potential government efficiency agency(30:23) SpaceX updates, overreaching regulations... (Date published: Sep 9, 2024)\n- Tesla CEO, X owner and billionaire Elon Musk will appear in the Philadelphia area on Thursday for a town hall event to promote absentee voting and early voting in the 2024 election. (Date published: Oct 17, 2024)\n- Billionaire tech executive Elon Musk cast the upcoming presidential election in dire terms during an appearance with Donald Trump, calling the Republican presidential nominee the only candidate \u201cto preserve democracy in America.\u201d. The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla who also purchased X, Musk joined Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday at the site where the former president survived an ... (Date published: Oct 6, 2024)\n- Item 1 of 2 Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk gestures behind protective glass during a rally for Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. president Donald Trump, at the site of the July ... (Date published: Oct 16, 2024)\n- Elon Musk, the world's richest man and Trump's most powerful backer, has a sprawling industrial empire and a hardening set of anti-progressive views. He wants to reshape Washington on issues like ... (Date published: Nov 2, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill I have met Elon Musk by 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Elon Musk public events and appearances 2024", "search_results": "(0:00) Besties intro Elon Musk!(4:01) The Battle of Free Speech(13:03) Potential government efficiency agency(30:23) SpaceX updates, overreaching regulations... (Date published: Sep 9, 2024)\n\nTesla CEO, X owner and billionaire Elon Musk will appear in the Philadelphia area on Thursday for a town hall event to promote absentee voting and early voting in the 2024 election. (Date published: Oct 17, 2024)\n\nBillionaire tech executive Elon Musk cast the upcoming presidential election in dire terms during an appearance with Donald Trump, calling the Republican presidential nominee the only candidate \u201cto preserve democracy in America.\u201d. The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla who also purchased X, Musk joined Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday at the site where the former president survived an ... (Date published: Oct 6, 2024)\n\nItem 1 of 2 Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk gestures behind protective glass during a rally for Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. president Donald Trump, at the site of the July ... (Date published: Oct 16, 2024)\n\nElon Musk, the world's richest man and Trump's most powerful backer, has a sprawling industrial empire and a hardening set of anti-progressive views. He wants to reshape Washington on issues like ... (Date published: Nov 2, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. OpenAI has shown willingness to purchase valuable domain names, recently acquiring AI.com from Google\n2. Domain verification with OpenAI requires proof of ownership and specific DNS settings\n3. Once a domain is verified with an OpenAI organization, no other organizations can claim ownership\n4. Domain transfers can be tracked through ICANN's WHOIS tool\n5. OpenAI has recently made high-profile domain acquisitions (Chat.com showing as \"pending transfer\")\n6. We're at December 1, 2024, with only 30 days until the market closes\n7. ClosedAI.com would be an antagonistic domain name to OpenAI's brand and mission of openness\n\n\n\n1. Short timeframe remaining (30 days) makes any domain acquisition and redirect setup more challenging (8/10)\n2. No evidence in sources that OpenAI owns or is pursuing closedAI.com specifically (7/10)\n3. The domain might be owned by someone who refuses to sell or demands an unreasonable price (6/10)\n4. OpenAI might not view this domain as important enough to pursue, given their existing strong brand (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. OpenAI has demonstrated willingness and ability to acquire strategic domains (7/10)\n2. The domain could be damaging to OpenAI's brand if used antagonistically, motivating acquisition (6/10)\n3. OpenAI has significant financial resources to make competitive offers (5/10)\n4. Technical implementation of a redirect is simple once domain is acquired (3/10)\n\n\n\nThe key factors here are time constraint and strategic value. With only 30 days remaining, any domain acquisition would need to be already in progress or happen very quickly. While OpenAI has shown they're willing to buy domains, there's no evidence they're pursuing this specific one.\n\nThe strategic value of closedAI.com is debatable. While it could be used antagonistically against OpenAI, it's not as obviously valuable as AI.com or Chat.com. The name itself is somewhat awkward and unlikely to receive significant organic traffic.\n\nA domain redirect requires both acquisition and technical implementation. While the technical part is straightforward, the acquisition process can be complex and time-consuming, especially if the current owner is uncooperative or seeking an unreasonable price.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing this forecast, I need to consider:\n1. Base rate for domain acquisitions and redirects: Generally low, especially in short timeframes\n2. OpenAI's demonstrated behavior: They focus on positive brand-building domains (AI.com, Chat.com) rather than defensive acquisitions\n3. Time pressure: 30 days is very short for domain acquisition and implementation\n4. Market dynamics: Domain sales often take months of negotiation\n5. Priority level: This likely isn't a high-priority domain for OpenAI compared to other strategic initiatives\n\nThe tentative probability of 0.15 seems reasonable given these factors. While OpenAI has the resources and capability to make this happen, the combination of short timeframe and lack of clear strategic value makes it unlikely. The probability shouldn't be much lower because OpenAI has shown they're willing to make quick moves on domains when motivated.\n\n\n*0.15*", "probability": 0.15, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/_deleted_/will-closedaicom-redirect-to-openai", "market_probability": 0.16107034333491313, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill closedAI.com redirect to OpenAI.com before 2024 ends?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Because domain verification is currently tied to specific OpenAI organizations, once one organization executes the domain verification, no other organizations can claim ownership to the same domain. This means that SSO and Builder Profiles should reside in the same organization with domain verification, or else a verified domain residing one ...\n- \u2022 To publish your GPTs publicly, you\u2019ll need to have a domain name. If you don\u2019t have one, purchase a domain from a registrar like GoDaddy, Namecheap, etc. \u2022 Once you have your domain, you need to verify ownership with OpenAI. This is where the TXT file comes in. Verify Domain Ownership: \u2022 OpenAI will provide you with a TXT record. (Date published: Nov 11, 2023)\n- Where do I get the TXT record from OpenAI? Verify Domain Ownership: \u2022 OpenAI will provide you with a TXT record. This is a type of DNS (Domain Name System) record used to prove domain ownership. \u2022 Log in to your domain registrar\u2019s control panel and navigate to the DNS settings section. \u2022 Add a new TXT record, pasting the value provided by OpenAI. (Date published: Dec 30, 2023)\n- The OpenAI ownership structure is divided between Microsoft (49%), other stakeholders (49%), and the original OpenAI non-profit foundation, which staunchly preserves its autonomy as the leading firm continues to write OpenAI history. ... As the AI domain witnesses rapid advancements, the flexible manner of OpenAI\u2019s ownership and operational ... (Date published: Oct 22, 2024)\n- A purchase of the domain can be seen in ICANN\u2019s WHOIS tool, which indicates that the ownership of Chat.com is \"pending transfer,\" meaning it has been transferred to a new party. OpenAI is no stranger to spending millions on domains, having purchased the AI.com domain from Google in February 2023. (Date published: Nov 7, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill closedAI.com redirect to OpenAI.com before 2024 ends?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"OpenAI domain ownership closedAI.com\"", "search_results": "Because domain verification is currently tied to specific OpenAI organizations, once one organization executes the domain verification, no other organizations can claim ownership to the same domain. This means that SSO and Builder Profiles should reside in the same organization with domain verification, or else a verified domain residing one ...\n\n\u2022 To publish your GPTs publicly, you\u2019ll need to have a domain name. If you don\u2019t have one, purchase a domain from a registrar like GoDaddy, Namecheap, etc. \u2022 Once you have your domain, you need to verify ownership with OpenAI. This is where the TXT file comes in. Verify Domain Ownership: \u2022 OpenAI will provide you with a TXT record. (Date published: Nov 11, 2023)\n\nWhere do I get the TXT record from OpenAI? Verify Domain Ownership: \u2022 OpenAI will provide you with a TXT record. This is a type of DNS (Domain Name System) record used to prove domain ownership. \u2022 Log in to your domain registrar\u2019s control panel and navigate to the DNS settings section. \u2022 Add a new TXT record, pasting the value provided by OpenAI. (Date published: Dec 30, 2023)\n\nThe OpenAI ownership structure is divided between Microsoft (49%), other stakeholders (49%), and the original OpenAI non-profit foundation, which staunchly preserves its autonomy as the leading firm continues to write OpenAI history. ... As the AI domain witnesses rapid advancements, the flexible manner of OpenAI\u2019s ownership and operational ... (Date published: Oct 22, 2024)\n\nA purchase of the domain can be seen in ICANN\u2019s WHOIS tool, which indicates that the ownership of Chat.com is \"pending transfer,\" meaning it has been transferred to a new party. OpenAI is no stranger to spending millions on domains, having purchased the AI.com domain from Google in February 2023. (Date published: Nov 7, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The Phlegraean Fields is a supervolcano near Naples, Italy, spanning 12-15km wide\n2. Last erupted in 1538 (485 years ago)\n3. Has shown increased activity since the 1950s\n4. New uplift phase began in 2005\n5. As of August 2024, maximum uplift reached 132.5cm at Rione Terra in Pozzuoli\n6. Specifically saw 30.5cm uplift from January 2023 to August 2024\n7. The volcano is showing \"troubling signs of reawakening\"\n8. The forecast window is only December 2024 (1 month)\n\n\n\n1. Despite concerning signals, volcanic systems can remain in states of unrest for decades or centuries without erupting (Strength: 8/10)\n2. The forecast window is extremely short - just one month - making an eruption during this specific timeframe unlikely even if longer-term risk is elevated (Strength: 9/10)\n3. Modern monitoring systems allow scientists to detect precursor signals well in advance of major eruptions, and no imminent eruption warning has been issued (Strength: 7/10)\n4. While uplift is concerning, it's not necessarily indicative of imminent eruption - many episodes of significant uplift have occurred without leading to eruption (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\n1. The rapid uplift rate (30.5cm in ~20 months) suggests significant ongoing magmatic activity (Strength: 7/10)\n2. The system is showing multiple signs of unrest simultaneously, which increases eruption probability (Strength: 6/10)\n3. The volcano has a history of eruptions, proving the system is capable of producing them (Strength: 4/10)\n\n\n\nWhile the signs of unrest are concerning from a long-term perspective, we need to focus specifically on the probability of an eruption in December 2024. The base rate for supervolcano eruptions in any given month is extremely low. Even with elevated risk factors, the conjunction of:\na) This specific volcano erupting\nb) During this specific one-month window\nremains quite improbable.\n\nThe uplift and other warning signs suggest increased medium-term risk, but volcanic systems often show such warning signs for extended periods without imminent eruption. The extremely short forecast window (one month) is a crucial limiting factor.\n\n\n0.02\n\n\nExamining this forecast against historical precedent:\n- Super volcanoes erupt very rarely (timescales of hundreds or thousands of years)\n- Even actively monitored volcanoes showing unrest typically provide clearer short-term warning signs before major eruptions\n- The 2% probability I've assigned represents a significantly elevated risk compared to baseline (which would be far lower than 1% for any random month)\n- Given the serious monitoring of this volcano, if an eruption were likely in December 2024, we would likely see more urgent warnings from scientific authorities\n\nMy initial forecast of 2% may actually be too high given the extremely short time window, despite the concerning signals. The presence of increased activity justifies an elevated risk above baseline, but perhaps not quite to 2% for a single month.\n\n\n*0.015*", "probability": 0.015, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/BTE/will-the-phlegraean-fields-super-vo", "market_probability": 0.10004762018910572, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill the Phlegraean Fields super volcano erupt by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- The Phlegraean Fields have a long volcanic history, with activity dating back approximately 40,000 years. The most recent eruption occurred in 1538. Since the 1950s, the region has experienced several phases of unrest, reminding us that Earth\u2019s geology is always in motion .\n- T he Phlegraean Fields, a sprawling supervolcano near Naples, Italy, is showing troubling signs of reawakening.The Solfatara crater, one of its most active sites, has been steadily releasing more ...\n- It's called the Campi Flegrei (Phlegraean Fields), and it is 12-15km wide (7.5-9.5 miles). Unlike Vesuvius, it has no visible cone, and so goes largely unnoticed day-to-day, but with so many ... (Date published: May 21, 2024)\n- A new uplift phase of the Phlegraean Fields caldera began in 2005. At the end of August 2024, the maximum uplift value reached in the Rione Terra in Pozzuoli (the point of maximum caldera deformation) was 132.5 cm. Specifically, the uplift recorded from January 2023 to August 2024 was 30.5 cm.\n- The Phlegraean Fields, a supervolcano located near Naples, ... 2024, 5:33pm (Photo by Jacques Van Dinteren / Getty Images) ... especially if a volcano has been showing signs of activity for ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill the Phlegraean Fields super volcano erupt by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Phlegraean Fields volcano warning signs 2024", "search_results": "The Phlegraean Fields have a long volcanic history, with activity dating back approximately 40,000 years. The most recent eruption occurred in 1538. Since the 1950s, the region has experienced several phases of unrest, reminding us that Earth\u2019s geology is always in motion .\n\nT he Phlegraean Fields, a sprawling supervolcano near Naples, Italy, is showing troubling signs of reawakening.The Solfatara crater, one of its most active sites, has been steadily releasing more ...\n\nIt's called the Campi Flegrei (Phlegraean Fields), and it is 12-15km wide (7.5-9.5 miles). Unlike Vesuvius, it has no visible cone, and so goes largely unnoticed day-to-day, but with so many ... (Date published: May 21, 2024)\n\nA new uplift phase of the Phlegraean Fields caldera began in 2005. At the end of August 2024, the maximum uplift value reached in the Rione Terra in Pozzuoli (the point of maximum caldera deformation) was 132.5 cm. Specifically, the uplift recorded from January 2023 to August 2024 was 30.5 cm.\n\nThe Phlegraean Fields, a supervolcano located near Naples, ... 2024, 5:33pm (Photo by Jacques Van Dinteren / Getty Images) ... especially if a volcano has been showing signs of activity for ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. A top market creator (firstuserhere) was recently banned for using alt accounts to boost market visibility\n2. Alt accounts are technically allowed on Manifold with some basic restrictions\n3. The question requires proof/discovery by Manifold staff by EOY 2024\n4. There are comments suggesting other users may be using alts (specific mention of \"BTE\")\n5. This is a relatively short time window (1 month) for detection\n6. Market manipulation via alts appears to be a known issue in prediction markets\n7. Self-referential markets are particularly vulnerable to alt manipulation\n8. Manifold uses play money (\"mana\") and \"Sweepcash\" which can be withdrawn for real money\n9. Being a top 20 market creator implies high visibility and scrutiny\n\n\n\n1. Short remaining time window (1 month) makes detection less likely (8/10)\n2. After a high-profile ban, other creators likely to be more careful or temporarily cease such activities (7/10)\n3. Detection requires both the behavior AND discovery by staff within the timeframe (6/10)\n4. Top creators have reputational stakes, making them less likely to risk detection (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Recent ban may have triggered increased scrutiny of other suspicious accounts (7/10)\n2. Comments suggest community members are already identifying suspicious patterns (6/10)\n3. Specific mention of \"BTE\" with apparent evidence suggests investigation may be ongoing (5/10)\n4. The behavior seems somewhat common based on casual comments about \"boosting markets\" (4/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here is the interaction between increased scrutiny (due to recent ban) and the short time window. The presence of existing suspicions (particularly about BTE) suggests some investigations may already be in progress, which could resolve within the month.\n\nHowever, the conjunction of:\n- Someone being a top 20 creator\n- Using alts\n- Being discovered\n- Being discovered specifically within this month\nmakes this a relatively low probability event.\n\nThe recent ban likely creates opposing forces: increased scrutiny but also increased caution among those using alts.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nSome additional considerations:\n1. Base rate: We've seen one confirmed case, suggesting this isn't extremely rare\n2. Selection effect: Top 20 creators are highly visible and their patterns more likely to be noticed\n3. Timeline compression: Knowledge of EOY might accelerate any pending investigations\n\nThe short time window is the strongest limiting factor here. Even if more creators are using alts, discovery and confirmation within one month is a significant constraint. However, if investigations are already in progress (as comments suggest), this might be less limiting.\n\nThe 0.15 initial estimate seems reasonable given:\n- The conjunction of required conditions\n- The compressed timeline\n- But balanced against apparent ongoing investigations and increased scrutiny\n\n\n*0.15*", "probability": 0.15, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Bayesian/will-another-top-20-market-creator", "market_probability": 0.7095705477732879, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill another top 20 market creator be found to be using alts to boost their numbers, by EOY 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nMay have been top 20 market creator in the past, if there is proof. \n\nContext: firstuserhere, a market creator that had a lot of markets about AI, got banned today for creating alts, presumably to boost the visibility of his markets by betting on them with more accounts.\n\nWill some other market creator be found to be doing this by manifold staff, by the end of the year?\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- NivlacM (2024-04-10): And over here I've been boosting my markets like a schmuck \ud83e\udd72\n- Bayesian (2024-04-10): LOL same same\n- Bayesian (2024-11-22): BTE seems to be doing that, I\u2019d be fine with resolving it yes now if you\u2019re convinced those are his alts\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Resolved NO. Various self-referential markets can be manipulated with Manifold alt accounts, eg \"will the number of NO bettors be more than the number of YES bettors?\". Markets like this are already subject to de-listing under \"Markets only about their own activity\". Will Manifold go further and ban such markets? Resolves YES if alt-manipulable self-referential markets like this are subject to ...\n- Resolved YES. Currently manifold allows alts (with some very basic restrictions). One of they reasons they do this is presumably that an alt ban would be hard to enforce. Still, it is not obvious to most users that alts are allowed, and it's not clear to me it's a good thing at all. Alt accounts do provide some utility, but they do so in a very awkward way and are definitely not a good user ...\n- Say someone sees Manifold currently has 990 DAU so they buy YES and create 10 alt accounts to push the number to 1000 to get the market to resolve YES, turning a profit. This is based on couple of recent controversies, but I've abstracted and changed the scenario to focus more on the question in principle and less on the specific people and ...\n- Consider a prediction market on a question like: \"Will Democrats win the 2024 US presidential election?\" If the market is currently displaying a probability of 50%, but you believe that the true chance is higher, you can purchase shares at a cost $0.50/share that will pay out $1 if the Democrats win.\n- Manifold, formerly known as Manifold Markets, is an online prediction market platform. [1] [2] Users engage in competitive forecasting using play money called 'mana', as well as 'Sweepcash,' which can be withdrawn for real money, or donated to charity. [3]Topics on Manifold have included the 2024 United States presidential election and the Oscars. [4] ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill another top 20 market creator be found to be using alts to boost their numbers, by EOY 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Manifold Markets alt account investigation 2024\"", "search_results": "Resolved NO. Various self-referential markets can be manipulated with Manifold alt accounts, eg \"will the number of NO bettors be more than the number of YES bettors?\". Markets like this are already subject to de-listing under \"Markets only about their own activity\". Will Manifold go further and ban such markets? Resolves YES if alt-manipulable self-referential markets like this are subject to ...\n\nResolved YES. Currently manifold allows alts (with some very basic restrictions). One of they reasons they do this is presumably that an alt ban would be hard to enforce. Still, it is not obvious to most users that alts are allowed, and it's not clear to me it's a good thing at all. Alt accounts do provide some utility, but they do so in a very awkward way and are definitely not a good user ...\n\nSay someone sees Manifold currently has 990 DAU so they buy YES and create 10 alt accounts to push the number to 1000 to get the market to resolve YES, turning a profit. This is based on couple of recent controversies, but I've abstracted and changed the scenario to focus more on the question in principle and less on the specific people and ...\n\nConsider a prediction market on a question like: \"Will Democrats win the 2024 US presidential election?\" If the market is currently displaying a probability of 50%, but you believe that the true chance is higher, you can purchase shares at a cost $0.50/share that will pay out $1 if the Democrats win.\n\nManifold, formerly known as Manifold Markets, is an online prediction market platform. [1] [2] Users engage in competitive forecasting using play money called 'mana', as well as 'Sweepcash,' which can be withdrawn for real money, or donated to charity. [3]Topics on Manifold have included the 2024 United States presidential election and the Oscars. [4] ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Bitcoin has risen +149.37% in the last 12 months, reaching new all-time highs above $86,000\n2. Current Bitcoin price is $96,485 USD (as of early December 2024)\n3. Historical data shows significant volatility in Bitcoin prices\n4. The question specifically asks about a >10% decline comparing December 31, 2024 to January 1, 2024\n5. Bitcoin has experienced four major \"halving\" events, with the most recent in April 2024\n6. Market sentiment indicators show \"Extreme Greed\" with a score of 84\n7. Bitcoin traditionally experiences increased volatility around major market events\n\n\n\n1. Strong institutional adoption and ETF presence has created more price stability compared to previous years (Strength: 7/10)\n2. Post-halving periods historically show sustained upward pressure on price (Strength: 8/10)\n3. Current market structure and liquidity depth makes large drawdowns less likely than in previous years (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Strong positive momentum and institutional buying pressure provides price support (Strength: 7/10)\n\n\n\n1. \"Extreme Greed\" sentiment readings often precede significant market corrections (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Historical volatility patterns suggest at least one major correction per year is likely (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Current price levels represent significant gains, increasing profit-taking pressure (Strength: 6/10)\n4. End-of-year tax-loss harvesting could trigger selling pressure (Strength: 4/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here is the interaction between strong fundamental factors (institutional adoption, post-halving effects) and technical/sentiment factors suggesting overextension. The presence of ETFs has likely reduced extreme volatility, but hasn't eliminated it.\n\nBreaking down possible scenarios:\n- 60%: Continued stability or upward movement\n- 25%: Moderate correction (5-10%)\n- 15%: Major correction (>10%)\n\nThe base rate for significant Bitcoin corrections historically has been higher, but structural market changes justify a lower probability now. However, the extreme greed readings and rapid price appreciation create meaningful downside risk.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n\n1. Historical precedent: Bitcoin has experienced at least one 10%+ correction in most calendar years\n2. Market maturity: The crypto market in 2024 is more sophisticated than previous cycles\n3. Macro environment: Interest rate expectations and overall market conditions affect Bitcoin's volatility\n4. Time horizon: Only one month remains in 2024, reducing the window for a major correction\n\nThe presence of ETFs and institutional players provides stronger price support than in previous cycles. However, my initial forecast may be slightly low given:\n- The compressed timeframe (only December remaining)\n- The tendency for year-end portfolio rebalancing\n- The historical frequency of corrections following extreme greed readings\n\nWhile structural changes justify a lower probability than historical base rates would suggest, the combination of technical factors and sentiment indicators suggests slightly higher risk.\n\n\n*0.2*", "probability": 0.2, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/AmmonLam/will-the-bitcoin-go-down-by-more-th-6c9108114ec6", "market_probability": 0.042383316153305976, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill the Bitcoin go down by more than 10% over 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nResolution base on Yahoo! Finance Historical Data \nhttps://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BTC-USD/history?p=BTC-USD\nResolve base on 2024 start to end return\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- ftkurt (2024-01-30): single day movement or that 31dec 10% lower 1st jan?\n- Ammon Lam (2024-01-30): 31dec 10% lower 1st jan\n- Ammon Lam (2024-02-05): Jan31 price 10% lower than Dec 31 price\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Bitcoin Price Prediction 2024. Looking at Bitcoin\u2019s price chart, the world\u2019s top cryptocurrency has climbed +149.37% in the last 12 months to set new ATHs above $86,000. ... The first half of 2023 was excellent for BTC, with the price almost doubling since the start of the year, reaching $31,000 at the end of June. This was due to a slew of ...\n- Our real-time BTC to USD price update shows the current Bitcoin price as $96,485 USD. Our most recent Bitcoin price forecast indicates that its value will increase by 3.27% and reach 99636.60 by December 02, 2024.; Our technical indicators signal about the Bullish Bullish 100% market sentiment on Bitcoin, while the Fear & Greed Index is displaying a score of 84 (Extreme Greed). (Date published: Dec 9, 2019)\n- According to Changelly, based on Bitcoin's past price history, analysts predict that the minimum price of BTC at the end of 2024 could be around $63,706.32, with an average expected price of ...\n- Bitcoin Price Prediction 2024. With a bull run for most of Q1, Q2, and Q3 of 2024, the buyers are confidently taking bullish positions in Bitcoin. ... Thereafter, the BTC price for the year 2029 could range between $201,355 and $459,368. The average price is projected to be $330,361, indicating a significant rise in Bitcoin\u2019s value.\n- The Bitcoin price prediction for next week is between $ 97,379 on the lower end and $ 99,961 on the high end. Based on our BTC price prediction chart, the price of Bitcoin will increase by 2.65% and reach $ 99,961 by Dec 08, 2024 if it reaches the upper price target.\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill the Bitcoin go down by more than 10% over 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"bitcoin year-end price prediction 2024\"", "search_results": "Bitcoin Price Prediction 2024. Looking at Bitcoin\u2019s price chart, the world\u2019s top cryptocurrency has climbed +149.37% in the last 12 months to set new ATHs above $86,000. ... The first half of 2023 was excellent for BTC, with the price almost doubling since the start of the year, reaching $31,000 at the end of June. This was due to a slew of ...\n\nOur real-time BTC to USD price update shows the current Bitcoin price as $96,485 USD. Our most recent Bitcoin price forecast indicates that its value will increase by 3.27% and reach 99636.60 by December 02, 2024.; Our technical indicators signal about the Bullish Bullish 100% market sentiment on Bitcoin, while the Fear & Greed Index is displaying a score of 84 (Extreme Greed). (Date published: Dec 9, 2019)\n\nAccording to Changelly, based on Bitcoin's past price history, analysts predict that the minimum price of BTC at the end of 2024 could be around $63,706.32, with an average expected price of ...\n\nBitcoin Price Prediction 2024. With a bull run for most of Q1, Q2, and Q3 of 2024, the buyers are confidently taking bullish positions in Bitcoin. ... Thereafter, the BTC price for the year 2029 could range between $201,355 and $459,368. The average price is projected to be $330,361, indicating a significant rise in Bitcoin\u2019s value.\n\nThe Bitcoin price prediction for next week is between $ 97,379 on the lower end and $ 99,961 on the high end. Based on our BTC price prediction chart, the price of Bitcoin will increase by 2.65% and reach $ 99,961 by Dec 08, 2024 if it reaches the upper price target."}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Diddy (age 54) is currently in MDC Brooklyn awaiting trial for federal sex trafficking and racketeering charges\n2. His trial is scheduled for May 5, 2025\n3. He has had multiple bail hearings, with a recent one scheduled for Nov 22, 2024\n4. Prosecutors allege he has attempted to obstruct the investigation and taint the jury pool\n5. He faces at least 10 civil lawsuits related to abuse and sexual assault allegations\n6. MDC Brooklyn is a federal detention center known for holding pre-trial defendants\n7. Diddy has previously had no major health issues publicly reported\n8. The time period in question is approximately 1 month (Dec 1, 2024 to Jan 1, 2025)\n\n\n\n1. Suicide risk - Being detained, facing serious federal charges, and potential life imprisonment could lead to severe depression and suicidal thoughts (7/10)\n2. Prison violence - Federal detention centers can be dangerous, especially for high-profile inmates (4/10)\n3. Health complications - Stress from legal situation could exacerbate any underlying health conditions (3/10)\n\n\n\n1. Short timeframe - Only need to survive approximately one month (9/10)\n2. Federal facility security - MDC Brooklyn likely has enhanced security and monitoring for high-profile inmates (8/10)\n3. Access to medical care - Federal facilities provide basic healthcare (7/10)\n4. Relatively young age and no known serious health conditions (8/10)\n\n\n\nLet's break this down into primary risk factors for the one-month period:\n- Natural causes: Very low probability given age and health\n- Suicide: Highest risk factor, but federal facilities have suicide prevention protocols\n- External violence: Mitigated by facility security\n- Medical emergency: Low probability but possible due to stress\n\nThe short timeframe is crucial here - even with significant stressors, the probability of death in any given month for a 54-year-old in custody is quite low. Federal facilities have extensive protocols to prevent both suicide and violence, especially for high-profile inmates.\n\n\n0.97\n\n\nLet's examine this further:\n- Base rate: Monthly mortality rate for 54-year-old males is extremely low (less than 0.1%)\n- Incarceration increases mortality risk, but federal pre-trial detention is generally safer than state prisons\n- Being a high-profile inmate cuts both ways - potentially more targeted but also more protected\n- Suicide risk is real but surveillance should be high given his profile and the recent nature of his detention\n- The extremely short timeframe (one month) is the strongest factor supporting survival\n\nMy initial probability might be slightly high given the compound risks of incarceration and the serious nature of his charges. However, the extremely short timeframe and institutional protections remain compelling factors.\n\nLooking at comparable cases of high-profile defendants in federal detention, deaths are extremely rare in the short term, especially during pre-trial detention where monitoring is typically highest.\n\n\n*0.95*", "probability": 0.95, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/ChristopherONeil/will-diddy-be-alive-in-2025", "market_probability": 0.9174785058743113, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Diddy be alive in 2025?\n \n**Description:**\nWill Sean \"Diddy\" Combs, Inmate # 37452-054 at MDC Brooklyn, be alive on January 1, 2025?\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- In the past 11 months, music magnate Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs has faced crescendoing allegations of abuse and sexual assault, culminating in at least 10 civil lawsuits, a federal human trafficking ... (Date published: Sep 18, 2024)\n- Judge Grants Diddy a Legal Victory After His Attorneys Claim 'Outrageous Conduct' by Prosecutors. A third bail hearing for Sean \"Diddy\" Combs is scheduled for Friday, Nov. 22 (Date published: Nov 20, 2024)\n- Sean \"Diddy\" Combs remains in a Brooklyn jail while awaiting a May 5 trial on federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering.The hip-hop mogul has pleaded not guilty on all charges and has ... (Date published: Oct 11, 2024)\n- Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs has continued to attempt to obstruct the federal government\u2019s investigation into his sex trafficking case and is trying to taint the jury pool even while he is in federal ... (Date published: Nov 16, 2024)\n- Topline. A federal judge has punted a decision to next week on whether music mogul Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs can be released on bail as he awaits trial on charges of racketeering and sex trafficking ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Diddy be alive in 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Diddy health status 2024 legal investigation\"", "search_results": "In the past 11 months, music magnate Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs has faced crescendoing allegations of abuse and sexual assault, culminating in at least 10 civil lawsuits, a federal human trafficking ... (Date published: Sep 18, 2024)\n\nJudge Grants Diddy a Legal Victory After His Attorneys Claim 'Outrageous Conduct' by Prosecutors. A third bail hearing for Sean \"Diddy\" Combs is scheduled for Friday, Nov. 22 (Date published: Nov 20, 2024)\n\nSean \"Diddy\" Combs remains in a Brooklyn jail while awaiting a May 5 trial on federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering.The hip-hop mogul has pleaded not guilty on all charges and has ... (Date published: Oct 11, 2024)\n\nSean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs has continued to attempt to obstruct the federal government\u2019s investigation into his sex trafficking case and is trying to taint the jury pool even while he is in federal ... (Date published: Nov 16, 2024)\n\nTopline. A federal judge has punted a decision to next week on whether music mogul Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs can be released on bail as he awaits trial on charges of racketeering and sex trafficking ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me forecast this step by step:\n\n\n1. The market creator is currently a Manifold moderator\n2. They've indicated they want to continue being a moderator (\"Yes probably\" response)\n3. Manifold is implementing new requirements including activity requirements for moderators\n4. The market creator describes themselves as an \"active Manifold user\"\n5. They have \"mostly avoided major controversies\"\n6. The resolution period spans almost all of 2024\n7. The creator has promised not to deliberately sabotage their moderation status\n\n\n\n1. Long time horizon (nearly 12 months) increases uncertainty and chance of unexpected events (8/10)\n2. New activity requirements could become more demanding than expected (6/10)\n3. Even careful moderators can accidentally make controversial decisions that lead to removal (5/10)\n4. Personal circumstances could change affecting ability to stay active (4/10)\n5. Platform could change moderation structure/requirements further (3/10)\n\n\n\n1. Currently active user who wants to continue moderating (8/10)\n2. Track record of avoiding controversy (7/10)\n3. Explicit commitment not to self-sabotage (6/10)\n4. Has demonstrated awareness of position responsibilities by creating clear market resolution criteria (5/10)\n5. Already survived initial implementation of new requirements (4/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration is the interaction between the long time horizon and the continuous nature of the requirement. This is a conjunctive probability where they must maintain status every day for ~12 months. Even a small daily risk compounds significantly.\n\nThe main risk factors are:\n- Unexpected personal circumstances affecting activity\n- Accidental controversial decisions\n- Changes in platform requirements\n\nHowever, the market creator appears conscientious and committed, with a good track record. They're starting from a position of active engagement and demonstrating good judgment in market creation.\n\nA rough decomposition:\n- Base monthly risk of losing status: ~3-5%\n- Compound this over 12 months\n- Adjust slightly up for demonstrated competence and commitment\n\n\n0.65\n\n\nReviewing this estimate:\n\n1. The conjunctive nature of maintaining status continuously for 12 months suggests my initial estimate may be too optimistic. Even a 99% chance of retaining status in any given month compounds to only ~89% over 12 months.\n\n2. Key adjustments to consider:\n- Base rate for moderator retention over similar timeframes (unknown but likely higher than initial estimate suggests)\n- Evidence of competence and commitment (strong positive signal)\n- Platform stability and reasonable requirements (moderate positive)\n- Long time horizon (significant negative)\n\n3. The creator's explicit commitment and demonstrated understanding of responsibilities provides strong evidence for maintaining status, but the length of time and continuous nature of the requirement substantially increases risk.\n\nGiven these considerations, I should adjust downward to account for the conjunctive probability structure while still respecting the strong positive signals about the creator's capability and commitment.\n\n\n*0.55*", "probability": 0.55, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Conflux/will-i-be-a-moderator-continuously", "market_probability": 0.9466890797462106, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill I be a Manifold moderator continuously until the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nThey're rolling out a new program where moderators have to be, among other things, active. So far I've been an active Manifold user, and have mostly avoided major controversies, but will I retain my modhood for the whole year?\n\nI promise not to sabotage anything in order to manipulate this market toward NO.\n\nGeneral policy for my markets: In the rare event of a conflict between my resolution criteria and the agreed-upon common-sense spirit of the market, I may resolve it according to the market's spirit or N/A, probably after discussion.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Eliza (2024-01-22): Do you wish to be a moderator through the end of the year, at this time?\n- Conflux (2024-01-22): Yes probably\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- For ease of resolution, the words and phrases must be mentioned verbatim, not including possessive, past tense, pluralization, or any other form of the word, but agnostic to capitalization.\n- Ends December 13, 2024 at 4:30 PM PST Game of the Year The Game Awards GOTY. 15% chance. Ends December 13, 2024 at 4:30 PM PST Game of the Year The Game Awards GOTY. MANIFOLD. Browse News About App. Add funds (Sale 64% off) Sign up. Get. 1,000. and. 3.00. Dark Light (auto) Sign in. Open options. Will Black Myth Wukong win GOTY at \"The Game Awards\"?\n- Resolves to whoever is selected as the United States Democratic Party nominee for President at the 2024 Democratic National Convention. that one was the official politics market. That second market's language looked to me to be the same as the 'at the DNC', which is why I was okay resolving this, given the creator appeared inactive. ...\n- Resolved 9ef21c6efe1a. Resolves to the number of people on the USA IMO team who, on March 11 2024 at 10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, had markets on manifold asking if they would make IMO. No you can't make more markets after the fact to change the number. Perhaps I should have a second question for that possibility. I think these are all of them but I may have missed some. Please comment if I ...\n- Resolved MKT. Must finish on the podium in the actual race (not a sprint race). The race will take place on May 26, 2024. This market may not be open for live trading during the race (TBD) Three answers will be resolved YES, unless multiple \"Other/The Field\" drivers finish on the podium, because that answer can only be chosen once. In resolving any questions about unforeseen circumstances ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill I be a Manifold moderator continuously until the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "site:manifold.markets mod eligibility 2024 program details", "search_results": "For ease of resolution, the words and phrases must be mentioned verbatim, not including possessive, past tense, pluralization, or any other form of the word, but agnostic to capitalization.\n\nEnds December 13, 2024 at 4:30 PM PST Game of the Year The Game Awards GOTY. 15% chance. Ends December 13, 2024 at 4:30 PM PST Game of the Year The Game Awards GOTY. MANIFOLD. Browse News About App. Add funds (Sale 64% off) Sign up. Get. 1,000. and. 3.00. Dark Light (auto) Sign in. Open options. Will Black Myth Wukong win GOTY at \"The Game Awards\"?\n\nResolves to whoever is selected as the United States Democratic Party nominee for President at the 2024 Democratic National Convention. that one was the official politics market. That second market's language looked to me to be the same as the 'at the DNC', which is why I was okay resolving this, given the creator appeared inactive. ...\n\nResolved 9ef21c6efe1a. Resolves to the number of people on the USA IMO team who, on March 11 2024 at 10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, had markets on manifold asking if they would make IMO. No you can't make more markets after the fact to change the number. Perhaps I should have a second question for that possibility. I think these are all of them but I may have missed some. Please comment if I ...\n\nResolved MKT. Must finish on the podium in the actual race (not a sprint race). The race will take place on May 26, 2024. This market may not be open for live trading during the race (TBD) Three answers will be resolved YES, unless multiple \"Other/The Field\" drivers finish on the podium, because that answer can only be chosen once. In resolving any questions about unforeseen circumstances ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me forecast this step by step.\n\n\n1. Russian PMCs are actively operating in multiple African countries including CAR, Mali, Libya, Mozambique, and Sudan\n2. Rosgvardiya has become increasingly important in Russian PMC sector since 2016, taking control of parts of Wagner Group in June 2023\n3. Russian PMCs appear to prioritize resource-rich regions, particularly those with gold deposits\n4. PMCs have been expanding their presence in areas with high violent extremist organization (VEO) activity\n5. There's no current public evidence of Russian PMC presence in Lebanon\n6. Lebanon is experiencing political instability and security challenges\n7. Lebanon shares a border with Syria, where Russia has significant military presence\n8. Lebanon has historically maintained neutral/balanced relations with both Western powers and Russia\n9. Russian PMCs often operate in countries with weak state institutions and limited international oversight\n\n\n\n1. No historical precedent of Russian PMCs in Lebanon (8/10)\n2. Lebanon already has multiple security actors including Hezbollah, making PMC entry more complicated (7/10)\n3. Operating in Lebanon would risk direct confrontation with Western interests in the region (6/10)\n4. Lebanon lacks the natural resources (particularly gold) that typically attract Russian PMC operations (7/10)\n5. Only one month remains in 2024, making new operations less likely to establish and be confirmed (9/10)\n\n\n\n1. Lebanon's ongoing instability could create opportunities for PMC involvement (5/10)\n2. Russia's presence in Syria provides logistical proximity for PMC operations (6/10)\n3. Russia might seek to expand influence in Mediterranean region (4/10)\n4. Lebanon's weak central government creates conditions similar to other PMC operation zones (5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamics here involve:\n1. Time constraint is severe - with only one month remaining, new operations would need to be both established and publicly confirmed\n2. Geographic and strategic considerations suggest Lebanon could be attractive, but lacks the typical resource-extraction motivation\n3. Multiple existing power structures in Lebanon make it a more complex operating environment than typical PMC targets\n4. The pattern of Russian PMC operations shows clear preference for areas with specific characteristics (weak governance, natural resources, limited international oversight) - Lebanon only partially matches this profile\n\nThe combination of these factors, particularly the time constraint and the lack of typical motivating factors, suggests a very low probability.\n\n\n0.03\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n1. Base rate: Russian PMCs have expanded to roughly 1-2 new countries per year in recent years\n2. The time constraint is particularly limiting - even if operations were being planned, public confirmation would be needed within 30 days\n3. Lebanon's strategic situation differs significantly from the typical PMC deployment pattern seen in Africa\n4. The presence of multiple international actors and media in Lebanon means operations would be harder to keep secret\n5. The probability should be low but non-zero due to:\n - Existing Russian presence in neighboring Syria\n - General pattern of Russian influence expansion\n - Lebanon's ongoing instability\n6. My initial estimate of 3% might be slightly high given the extremely short timeframe remaining\n\nThe combination of factors, especially the time constraint and Lebanon's unique characteristics compared to typical PMC deployment patterns, suggests an even lower probability is warranted.\n\n\n*0.02*", "probability": 0.02, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/BTE/will-any-russian-pmc-be-operating-i-e2710dcb4804", "market_probability": 0.09489132111871078, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill any Russian PMC be operating in Lebanon by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nDefinition of Operating: A Russian PMC will be considered to be operating in Lebanon if it has an active, confirmed presence or is conducting operations such as security, military training, logistical support, or any other form of military or security activity within the borders of Lebanon.\n\nVerification of PMC Presence: The presence or operation of a Russian PMC in Lebanon must be verified through credible and authoritative sources. This could include official statements or acknowledgments from the Russian government, the Lebanese government, international organizations, or reputable news agencies.\n\nTimeline: The presence or operation of the Russian PMC must be confirmed at any point on or before December 31, 2024.\n\nNature of Operations: The operations must be clearly attributed to a recognized Russian PMC. This excludes informal or unaffiliated groups that cannot be definitively linked to a registered PMC.\n\nPublicly Available Evidence: The evidence of the PMC's operations must be based on publicly available information, including but not limited to news reports, official statements, or independent verifications by international observers or watchdog organizations.\n\nExclusion of Non-PMC Activities: Activities by individuals who are Russian nationals but not acting as part of a PMC, or activities by organizations that are not PMCs, will not meet the criteria.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- The patterns in Russian PMC service provision in Africa indicates that there are specific characteristics that make certain states appealing clients for these PMCs, and vice versa. ... with an increase of 21 per cent compared to 2022.\u201d Given the rapid and deadly escalation of VEO activity in the Sahel, the need for military assistance in the ... (Date published: Nov 14, 2024)\n- These intra-military dynamics are a symptom of a much larger problem, one that could be exacerbated by the presence of Russian PMCs. Outside of CAR, there is potentially a profound impact on state security should the militaries of a growing list of Russian PMC clients in the Sahel experience desertions, defections, low morale, and mutiny. (Date published: May 30, 2024)\n- Rosgvardiya was established in 2016 and is an increasingly important actor in the Russian PMC sector. It is reportedly directly subordinate to Russian presidential authority. While Rosgvardiya is not privately-owned and thus not itself a PMC, it is involved in several PMCs, including parts of the Wagner Group since June 2023. (Date published: Mar 14, 2024)\n- Russia has extracted $2.5bn (\u00a32bn) worth of gold from Africa in the past two years, which is likely to have helped fund its war in Ukraine, according to the Blood Gold Report.\n- In its quest for resources, Russia has increasingly turned to Africa, where its PMCs play a critical role. Russian fighters are involved in various operations in the Central African Republic (CAR), Mali, Libya, Mozambique, and Sudan, among others. Wagner\u2019s activities in CAR are particularly illustrative. (Date published: Jul 5, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill any Russian PMC be operating in Lebanon by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Russian PMC activity in Lebanon 2024\"", "search_results": "The patterns in Russian PMC service provision in Africa indicates that there are specific characteristics that make certain states appealing clients for these PMCs, and vice versa. ... with an increase of 21 per cent compared to 2022.\u201d Given the rapid and deadly escalation of VEO activity in the Sahel, the need for military assistance in the ... (Date published: Nov 14, 2024)\n\nThese intra-military dynamics are a symptom of a much larger problem, one that could be exacerbated by the presence of Russian PMCs. Outside of CAR, there is potentially a profound impact on state security should the militaries of a growing list of Russian PMC clients in the Sahel experience desertions, defections, low morale, and mutiny. (Date published: May 30, 2024)\n\nRosgvardiya was established in 2016 and is an increasingly important actor in the Russian PMC sector. It is reportedly directly subordinate to Russian presidential authority. While Rosgvardiya is not privately-owned and thus not itself a PMC, it is involved in several PMCs, including parts of the Wagner Group since June 2023. (Date published: Mar 14, 2024)\n\nRussia has extracted $2.5bn (\u00a32bn) worth of gold from Africa in the past two years, which is likely to have helped fund its war in Ukraine, according to the Blood Gold Report.\n\nIn its quest for resources, Russia has increasingly turned to Africa, where its PMCs play a critical role. Russian fighters are involved in various operations in the Central African Republic (CAR), Mali, Libya, Mozambique, and Sudan, among others. Wagner\u2019s activities in CAR are particularly illustrative. (Date published: Jul 5, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. AlphaFold 3 was announced in May 2024, bringing major improvements including:\n - Ability to predict structures beyond just proteins\n - Less dependence on prior protein information\n - Free platform for non-commercial research\n\n2. Historical release timeline:\n - AlphaFold 2: 2020\n - AlphaFold 3: May 2024\n - Roughly 3.5 years between major versions\n\n3. AlphaFold has seen widespread adoption:\n - 1.4M users across 190+ countries\n - Used in various applications from vaccines to enzymes\n\n4. The question has a clear deadline of December 31, 2024\n\n\n\n1. The timing is extremely tight - AlphaFold 3 was just released in May 2024, making it highly unlikely they would announce version 4 just 7 months later (Strength: 9/10)\n\n2. Historical precedent shows ~3.5 years between major versions, suggesting the next version would be more likely around 2027-2028 (Strength: 8/10)\n\n3. DeepMind typically needs time to gather user feedback and real-world performance data before developing major upgrades (Strength: 7/10)\n\n\n\n1. AI development is accelerating rapidly, potentially compressing development cycles (Strength: 5/10)\n\n2. Competition in the AI protein structure prediction space might pressure faster releases (Strength: 4/10)\n\n3. There could be breakthrough improvements ready to announce as a new version (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe core consideration here is the extremely short time window between AlphaFold 3's release in May 2024 and the end of 2024. This timeframe of just 7 months would represent an unprecedented acceleration in AlphaFold's development cycle, compared to the previous ~3.5 year gap between versions.\n\nWhile AI development is indeed accelerating, major protein structure prediction models still require extensive testing and validation before release, especially given their scientific applications. The recent release of version 3 makes it particularly unlikely that version 4 would be announced so soon after.\n\nThe historical pattern and technical constraints strongly suggest this would be an extremely unlikely event.\n\n\n0.03\n\n\nReviewing my initial forecast:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: Major scientific software versions typically release on multi-year cycles, not months. The 3.5-year gap between AF2 and AF3 provides a reasonable prior.\n\n2. Time pressure: With only one month remaining in 2024 as of today's date, this makes the probability even lower than if we were forecasting from earlier in the year.\n\n3. Technical reality check: The development, testing, and validation cycle for a major new version would likely take significantly longer than 7 months, especially given the scientific nature of the software.\n\n4. Conjunctive conditions: The announcement must be official, specifically labeled as \"AlphaFold 4\", and come from Google/DeepMind/Alphabet.\n\nMy initial estimate of 3% actually seems slightly high given these considerations. While accelerating AI progress provides some upward pressure, the extremely short timeframe and recent release of version 3 make this highly improbable.\n\n\n*0.01*", "probability": 0.01, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Bayesian/will-alphafold-4-be-announced-in-20", "market_probability": 0.10252593972723202, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Alphafold 4 be announced in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nAny announcement along the lines of https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-deepmind-isomorphic-alphafold-3-ai-model/ (but for alphafold 4) resolves this market YES.\n\nFor example, it may start with:\n\nIntroducing AlphaFold 4, [...] \n\nThe announcement must be made by Google, Alphabet, Google Deepmind, or a related entity. \n\nIf Alphafold 4 hasn't been announced before 2025, resolves NO.\n\n\nSee also:\n@/Bayesian/will-alphafold-4-be-announced-in-20 (this market)\n\n@/Bayesian/will-alphafold-4-be-announced-in-20-47133ddcdde4 \n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- To date, 1.4 million users in over 190 countries have accessed the AlphaFold database, and scientists around the world have used AlphaFold\u2019s predictions to help advance research on everything from accelerating new malaria vaccines and advancing cancer drug discovery to developing plastic-eating enzymes for tackling pollution. (Date published: Oct 31, 2023)\n- Google DeepMind has released an improved version of its biology prediction tool, AlphaFold, that can predict the structures not only of proteins but of nearly all the elements of biological life. (Date published: May 8, 2024)\n- Google Deepmind has unveiled the third major version of its \"AlphaFold\" artificial intelligence model, designed to help scientists design drugs and target disease more effectively. (Date published: May 8, 2024)\n- Google DeepMind\u2019s newly launched AlphaFold Server is the most accurate tool in the world for predicting how proteins interact with other molecules throughout the cell. It is a free platform that scientists around the world can use for non-commercial research. With just a few clicks, biologists can harness the power of AlphaFold 3 to model structures composed of proteins, DNA, RNA and a ... (Date published: May 8, 2024)\n- To create AlphaFold3, Jumper, DeepMind chief executive Demis Hassabis and their colleagues made large changes to its predecessor: the latest version depends less on information about proteins ... (Date published: May 8, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Alphafold 4 be announced in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"alphafold latest research developments 2024 deepmind\"", "search_results": "To date, 1.4 million users in over 190 countries have accessed the AlphaFold database, and scientists around the world have used AlphaFold\u2019s predictions to help advance research on everything from accelerating new malaria vaccines and advancing cancer drug discovery to developing plastic-eating enzymes for tackling pollution. (Date published: Oct 31, 2023)\n\nGoogle DeepMind has released an improved version of its biology prediction tool, AlphaFold, that can predict the structures not only of proteins but of nearly all the elements of biological life. (Date published: May 8, 2024)\n\nGoogle Deepmind has unveiled the third major version of its \"AlphaFold\" artificial intelligence model, designed to help scientists design drugs and target disease more effectively. (Date published: May 8, 2024)\n\nGoogle DeepMind\u2019s newly launched AlphaFold Server is the most accurate tool in the world for predicting how proteins interact with other molecules throughout the cell. It is a free platform that scientists around the world can use for non-commercial research. With just a few clicks, biologists can harness the power of AlphaFold 3 to model structures composed of proteins, DNA, RNA and a ... (Date published: May 8, 2024)\n\nTo create AlphaFold3, Jumper, DeepMind chief executive Demis Hassabis and their colleagues made large changes to its predecessor: the latest version depends less on information about proteins ... (Date published: May 8, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Waymo vehicles have traveled over 22 million miles as of September 2024\n2. Waymo reports 0.4 collisions with injuries per million miles driven, compared to higher rates for human drivers\n3. A cyclist was injured by a Waymo vehicle in San Francisco in February 2024\n4. Waymo has massively scaled up service in San Francisco in 2024\n5. Only one crash has been classified by Waymo as causing a \"serious injury\" in their operational history\n6. There was a freeway accident in May 2024 with extensive vehicle damage but no reported injuries\n7. Waymo had to recall software after two vehicles hit the same truck in February 2024\n8. The market resolves YES for: loss of life, totaled vehicle, or hospitalization of human victim\n9. Only one month remains in 2024 when making this forecast\n\n\n\n1. Waymo's safety record is significantly better than human drivers (8/10)\n2. Most accidents involving Waymo vehicles are minor and don't result in serious injuries (7/10)\n3. Only one month remains in 2024, reducing exposure time (6/10)\n4. Waymo's technology is specifically designed to prevent serious accidents, with redundant safety systems (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Increased deployment in SF means more miles driven and higher exposure to accident risk (7/10)\n2. Already had one injury incident with cyclist in February 2024 (6/10)\n3. Urban environments present complex scenarios with pedestrians and cyclists (6/10)\n4. Even if Waymo isn't at fault, the question only requires \"involvement\" in serious accident (8/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration is the conditional probability of a serious accident given:\n1. Current accident rates and severity patterns\n2. Exposure (miles driven) in remaining month\n3. The relatively loose definition of \"involvement\" not requiring fault\n\nWith 0.4 injuries per million miles, and assuming similar monthly mileage as earlier in 2024, we'd expect roughly 0.03-0.05 injury accidents in December. However, not all injuries require hospitalization, and some accidents with vehicle damage don't result in injuries.\n\nThe \"involvement\" criterion significantly increases probability compared to if we required Waymo to be at fault. Urban deployment increases risk exposure to vulnerable road users.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing my initial forecast:\n\nBase rate considerations:\n- Historical rate of serious accidents per mile\n- Proportion of injury accidents requiring hospitalization\n- Rate of total-loss accidents in autonomous vehicle fleet\n\nThe 0.15 probability seems reasonable given:\n1. Short remaining timeframe (reduces risk)\n2. But balanced by increased deployment and mileage\n3. Prior incidents in 2024 suggest vulnerability exists\n4. \"Involvement\" criterion makes threshold easier to meet\n\nI need to consider that serious accidents are rare events that follow a Poisson distribution. Given the observed rate and remaining time, 0.15 actually seems slightly high for a one-month window, even with the loose \"involvement\" criterion.\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/quantizor/will-any-waymo-driverless-vehicle-b", "market_probability": 0.3604342084004443, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill any Waymo driverless vehicle be involved in a serious accident in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nThis market resolves to YES if an event occurs involving an autonomous Waymo vehicle that results in loss of life, a totaled vehicle, or sufficient harm to require hospitalization (human victim). \n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Mingwei Samuel (2024-02-01): A serious crash \"involving\" a Waymo (likely not at fault) with hospitalization is very likely.\n- Jb8d a (2024-02-08): .\n- quantizor (2024-02-14): Another one \\nhttps://www.cnn.com/2024/02/14/business/waymo-recalls-software-after-two-self-driving-cars-hit-the-same-truck/index.html\\nNo noted injuries \n- David F Watson (2024-04-06): They've massively scaled up service in SF, more miles means more chances to be hit by other cars.\\nhttps://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/waymo-service-driverless-robotaxi-19386537.php\n- Professor Wrongo (2024-05-13): Freeway accident below. I think no one was injured but definitely damage looks extensive.\\nhttps://abc7.com/videoClip/14808699/\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- And it\u2019s the only crash Waymo has classified as causing a serious injury. Twenty-two injuries might sound like a lot, but Waymo\u2019s driverless cars have traveled more than 22 million miles. (Date published: Sep 11, 2024)\n- A Waymo autonomous vehicle turning onto Mission Street in San Francisco, on November 17, 2023. ... Information about the accidents was either reported to the NHTSA as required under federal ... (Date published: May 14, 2024)\n- According to its research, which was peer-reviewed by experts outside the company, Waymo vehicles were involved in 0.4 collisions with injuries per million miles driven, compared with humans who ... (Date published: May 16, 2024)\n- There have been a handful of collisions involving driverless vehicles and a few injuries. A cyclist was injured by a Waymo vehicle in San Francisco in February 2024 after emerging from behind a ... (Date published: Nov 11, 2024)\n- Waymo acknowledges that while its vehicles do occasionally get involved in minor traffic collisions, its technology is much better at preventing more serious incidents than human drivers. (Date published: May 14, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill any Waymo driverless vehicle be involved in a serious accident in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Waymo autonomous vehicle serious accident 2024 injuries\"", "search_results": "And it\u2019s the only crash Waymo has classified as causing a serious injury. Twenty-two injuries might sound like a lot, but Waymo\u2019s driverless cars have traveled more than 22 million miles. (Date published: Sep 11, 2024)\n\nA Waymo autonomous vehicle turning onto Mission Street in San Francisco, on November 17, 2023. ... Information about the accidents was either reported to the NHTSA as required under federal ... (Date published: May 14, 2024)\n\nAccording to its research, which was peer-reviewed by experts outside the company, Waymo vehicles were involved in 0.4 collisions with injuries per million miles driven, compared with humans who ... (Date published: May 16, 2024)\n\nThere have been a handful of collisions involving driverless vehicles and a few injuries. A cyclist was injured by a Waymo vehicle in San Francisco in February 2024 after emerging from behind a ... (Date published: Nov 11, 2024)\n\nWaymo acknowledges that while its vehicles do occasionally get involved in minor traffic collisions, its technology is much better at preventing more serious incidents than human drivers. (Date published: May 14, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me help forecast this question following the structured approach.\n\n\n1. DPO (Direct Preference Optimization) is a newer alternative to RLHF for aligning language models with human preferences\n2. Mixtral-Instruct already uses DPO as of early 2024\n3. Major closed-source models (GPT-4, Bard) don't disclose their precise training methods\n4. Some researchers categorize DPO as a variant of RLHF rather than a distinct approach\n5. The resolution criteria requires \u22653 out of top 5 LLMs on Chatbot Arena to use DPO variants\n6. RLHF involves a two-stage process: training a reward model from human feedback, then using that to optimize the policy\n7. The market creator indicated they might resolve as N/A if there's uncertainty about closed models\n8. Only 1 month remains until resolution date\n\n\n\n1. Institutional inertia - major companies have invested heavily in RLHF infrastructure and expertise (8/10)\n2. Ambiguous categorization - some consider DPO a variant of RLHF, making resolution difficult (7/10)\n3. Limited time remaining in 2024 for widespread adoption of new training methods (9/10)\n4. Closed source models make verification impossible for several top contestants (8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Mixtral-Instruct already uses DPO, showing it's viable for top-tier models (7/10)\n2. DPO is simpler to implement than traditional RLHF (6/10)\n3. Major companies might already be using DPO variants without disclosing it (5/10)\n4. Academic momentum seems to favor DPO-like approaches (4/10)\n\n\n\nThe resolution criteria create significant measurement issues. With major players like OpenAI and Google not disclosing their training methods, and definitional ambiguity about whether DPO counts as RLHF, there's a real possibility of the market resolving as N/A.\n\nEven if we ignore the measurement issues:\n- Only 1 month remains until resolution\n- Major architectural changes typically take longer to implement and validate\n- The current known state (1 of top 5 using DPO) would need to shift significantly\n\nThe market creator's comment about possible N/A resolution significantly impacts the forecast structure. We should consider three main scenarios:\n1. Clear YES (~5%)\n2. Clear NO (~35%)\n3. N/A due to uncertainty (~60%)\n\n\n0.05\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n- The prior for any major technical transition happening within a specific 1-year timeframe should be relatively low\n- The requirement for \u22653 out of 5 is a high bar\n- The market creator's comments suggest they're aware of the verification challenges\n- The timing (December 2024) means we have very high certainty about the limited remaining time\n\nMy initial probability seems reasonable given:\n- The multiplicative requirements (3+ adoptions AND verifiable AND within timeframe)\n- The extremely short remaining timeline\n- The significant verification challenges\n- The high likelihood of N/A resolution\n\nWhile there are positive signals for DPO adoption long-term, the specific criteria and timeline make a YES outcome very unlikely.\n\n\n*0.05*", "probability": 0.05, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/JavierPrieto/will-dpo-variants-mostly-replace-rl", "market_probability": 0.3961771210967654, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill DPO variants mostly replace RLHF before EOY 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nMotivation\n\n[tweet]Resolves YES if \u22653 out of the 5 top LLMs on Chabot Arena use (a variant of) DPO on 2024/12/31.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Javi (2024-01-15): Mixtral-Instruct was trained with DPO\n- Nora Belrose (2024-02-24): I think this market fundamentally cannot resolve as stated because Chatbot Arena includes closed LLMs which do not disclose the details of how they have been finetuned. GPT-4 and Bard might already be using DPO and we wouldn't know about it. To my chagrin, some people (for example Nous Research) categorize DPO as a \\nvariant of\\n RLHF, so there's plausible deniability whenever OpenAI or Google refer to their finetuning as \"RLHF\"\n- Javi (2024-02-29): that's a good point. If there's uncertainty about close source models at the end of the year I might resolve N/A or push the deadline in the hope that the information will surface later.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is currently the most widely used method to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Existing RLHF methods can be roughly categorized as either reward-based or reward-free. Novel applications such as ChatGPT and Claude leverage reward-based methods that first learn a reward model and apply actor-critic algorithms, such as ... (Date published: Apr 16, 2024)\n- Pre-training: A language model is pre-trained on a large dataset to learn the basics of language understanding and generation. 2. Reward Model Training: Human feedback is collected in the form of ratings, rankings, or corrections, which are used to train a reward model. This model learns to predict the quality of the language model's outputs ... (Date published: May 4, 2024)\n- With advancements in self-supervised learning, the availability of trillions tokens in a pre-training corpus, instruction fine-tuning, and the development of large Transformers with billions of parameters, large language models (LLMs) are now capable of generating factual and coherent responses to human queries. However, the mixed quality of training data can lead to the generation of ... (Date published: Jul 23, 2024)\n- This dataset can be used to further train the upstream model via RLHF/DPO. Repeating this process allows for multi-round RLHF or DPO. ... (RLHF) Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. . RLHF utilizes pre-collected human preference data to train a reward model. ... Prompt Engineering is a widely used method to boost ...\n- While large-scale unsupervised language models (LMs) learn broad world knowledge and some reasoning skills, achieving precise control of their behavior is difficult due to the completely unsupervised nature of their training. Existing methods for gaining such steerability collect human labels of the relative quality of model generations and fine-tune the unsupervised LM to align with these ... (Date published: May 29, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill DPO variants mostly replace RLHF before EOY 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"DPO vs RLHF in large language model training 2024\"", "search_results": "Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is currently the most widely used method to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Existing RLHF methods can be roughly categorized as either reward-based or reward-free. Novel applications such as ChatGPT and Claude leverage reward-based methods that first learn a reward model and apply actor-critic algorithms, such as ... (Date published: Apr 16, 2024)\n\nPre-training: A language model is pre-trained on a large dataset to learn the basics of language understanding and generation. 2. Reward Model Training: Human feedback is collected in the form of ratings, rankings, or corrections, which are used to train a reward model. This model learns to predict the quality of the language model's outputs ... (Date published: May 4, 2024)\n\nWith advancements in self-supervised learning, the availability of trillions tokens in a pre-training corpus, instruction fine-tuning, and the development of large Transformers with billions of parameters, large language models (LLMs) are now capable of generating factual and coherent responses to human queries. However, the mixed quality of training data can lead to the generation of ... (Date published: Jul 23, 2024)\n\nThis dataset can be used to further train the upstream model via RLHF/DPO. Repeating this process allows for multi-round RLHF or DPO. ... (RLHF) Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. . RLHF utilizes pre-collected human preference data to train a reward model. ... Prompt Engineering is a widely used method to boost ...\n\nWhile large-scale unsupervised language models (LMs) learn broad world knowledge and some reasoning skills, achieving precise control of their behavior is difficult due to the completely unsupervised nature of their training. Existing methods for gaining such steerability collect human labels of the relative quality of model generations and fine-tune the unsupervised LM to align with these ... (Date published: May 29, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The Apple Vision Pro launched in February 2024\n2. There are already videos of people using Vision Pro while driving\n3. Distracted driving is a major safety concern, causing thousands of deaths annually\n4. Using VR/AR headsets while driving is illegal in most jurisdictions\n5. Current Vision Pro functionality requires windows to be pinned to specific locations\n6. Major publications are covering Vision Pro usage and safety concerns\n7. Insurance and safety organizations are actively commenting on the legality and risks\n8. The market closes December 31, 2024\n9. The resolution requires a major publication to specifically frame driving usage as a \"killer app\"\n\n\n\n1. Safety and legal concerns make it extremely unlikely any reputable publication would promote illegal driving behavior as a \"killer app\" (9/10)\n2. Insurance and safety organizations are actively warning against this use case (7/10)\n3. Technical limitations (pinned windows) make it impractical for driving use (6/10)\n4. Apple would likely actively discourage this narrative to avoid liability (8/10)\n5. Most legitimate use cases will focus on non-driving scenarios (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Controversial/dangerous usage could generate clickbait headlines (4/10)\n2. Some early adopters are already documenting driving usage (3/10)\n3. Publications might use \"killer app\" ironically or as a play on words given safety risks (2/10)\n4. There's significant media attention on Vision Pro usage patterns (3/10)\n\n\n\nThe core dynamic here is between media incentives and responsible journalism. While there's potential for sensationalist coverage, framing an illegal and dangerous use case as a \"killer app\" would be extremely irresponsible for any major publication. The liability and ethical concerns would likely prevent editorial approval.\n\nThe technical limitations and Apple's likely stance against such usage further reduce the probability. While we might see coverage of people inappropriately using Vision Pro while driving, it would more likely be framed as a concern or risk rather than a \"killer app.\"\n\nThe requirement for a major publication specifically using \"killer app\" framing makes this a fairly precise condition that seems unlikely given the professional and legal implications.\n\n\n0.03\n\n\nReviewing my analysis:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: \"Killer app\" claims for new technology products are relatively common in tech journalism, but they typically focus on legitimate use cases.\n\n2. The specificity of requiring both:\n - A major publication\n - Explicit \"killer app\" framing\n makes this a conjunctive probability that should indeed be quite low.\n\n3. The legal and safety implications create strong institutional pressures against such framing.\n\n4. Time horizon (through end of 2024) is relatively short for such a narrative to develop and be published.\n\nHowever, my initial 0.03 might be slightly too low given:\n- General media unpredictability\n- Potential for controversial takes to generate traffic\n- Multiple months remaining for such coverage to emerge\n\nA slightly higher probability better accounts for these factors while still reflecting the strong reasons against.\n\n\n*0.05*", "probability": 0.05, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/alexlitz/will-it-be-reported-that-usage-whil-e79b47523c81", "market_probability": 0.07999999999999995, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill it be reported that usage while driving is a killer app for the Apple Vision Pro in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nShould be by a major publication, and the headline or first paragraph should be to the effect of it being \"the\" or \"a\" killer app.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Alex Litzenberger (2024-02-04): This seems pretty unlikely given it seems there is currently no way to not have the windows pinned to one location from what I have seen.\n- Santiago Romero Brufau (2024-02-04): It may be able to use the car as a reference point. I\u2019ve seen videos of people using it in their cars.\n- Alex Litzenberger (2024-02-04): The flip side is it would make a pretty snippy headline regarding dangers of usage while driving.\n- David Bolin (2024-02-05): This is pretty clearly illegal in most places.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), more than 3,500 people were killed and over 360,000 people were injured in distracted driving crashes in 2021. Driving laws ... (Date published: Feb 8, 2024)\n- Customers try Apple Vision Pro virtual reality headsets at the product's launch at Apple The Grove in Los Angeles, California, on February 2, 2024. Clips of motorists using the goggles while ... (Date published: Feb 6, 2024)\n- In short, wearing an Apple Vision Pro headset while driving in the US and most other countries is illegal. Even though wearing a VR or mixed reality headset is not explicitly banned in most places ... (Date published: Mar 20, 2024)\n- As Joseph Young from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) told us \"whether it\u2019s technically illegal [to use a Vision Pro while driving] would depend on specific state laws ... (Date published: Feb 7, 2024)\n- The legal considerations surrounding the Apple Vision Pro underscore the importance of balancing innovation with safety. For drivers, the key takeaway is to remain informed about the laws in their jurisdiction and to prioritize safety when considering the use of such technologies while driving. (Date published: Mar 5, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill it be reported that usage while driving is a killer app for the Apple Vision Pro in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Apple Vision Pro driving legality safety features 2024\"", "search_results": "According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), more than 3,500 people were killed and over 360,000 people were injured in distracted driving crashes in 2021. Driving laws ... (Date published: Feb 8, 2024)\n\nCustomers try Apple Vision Pro virtual reality headsets at the product's launch at Apple The Grove in Los Angeles, California, on February 2, 2024. Clips of motorists using the goggles while ... (Date published: Feb 6, 2024)\n\nIn short, wearing an Apple Vision Pro headset while driving in the US and most other countries is illegal. Even though wearing a VR or mixed reality headset is not explicitly banned in most places ... (Date published: Mar 20, 2024)\n\nAs Joseph Young from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) told us \"whether it\u2019s technically illegal [to use a Vision Pro while driving] would depend on specific state laws ... (Date published: Feb 7, 2024)\n\nThe legal considerations surrounding the Apple Vision Pro underscore the importance of balancing innovation with safety. For drivers, the key takeaway is to remain informed about the laws in their jurisdiction and to prioritize safety when considering the use of such technologies while driving. (Date published: Mar 5, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. AlphaTom's ELO progression shows:\n - 1937 as of June 6, 2024\n - 2054 as of July 29, 2024 \n - This represents +117 ELO gain in ~7 weeks\n2. The target is 2100 ELO, requiring +46 more points from July level\n3. There are 5 months remaining until market close (July 29 to Dec 31)\n4. Chess ELO is a logarithmic scale - gains become harder at higher ratings\n5. Bullet chess is a very fast time control format, typically 1-2 minutes per player\n6. The comments track progression but stop at July 2024, leaving 4 months of unknown activity\n\n\n\n1. ELO gains typically slow down significantly as ratings increase (8/10)\n2. We have no data after July 2024, player could have stopped playing or declined (6/10)\n3. Maintaining high ratings in bullet chess is particularly volatile due to the time pressure (7/10)\n4. The rapid initial gains might represent the \"easy\" part of the climb, with diminishing returns ahead (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Already at 2054, only needs +46 more points with 5 months to achieve it (9/10)\n2. Demonstrated strong upward momentum with +117 gain in just 7 weeks previously (8/10)\n3. The remaining gap is less than half of what was already achieved in a shorter timeframe (8/10)\n4. Having 5 months provides multiple opportunities to hit the target even if temporary rating fluctuations occur (7/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is that AlphaTom needs a relatively small additional gain (+46 ELO) compared to their demonstrated capability for improvement (+117 in 7 weeks). While ELO gains do become harder at higher ratings, the remaining gap is modest enough that it seems achievable given the timeframe.\n\nThe main risk factors are:\n1. Unknown performance/activity after July 2024\n2. Potential rating volatility in bullet chess\n3. The possibility that progress has plateaued\n\nHowever, with 5 months remaining and only needing a ~40% as large gain as previously achieved in 7 weeks, there seems to be a strong likelihood of success.\n\n\n0.75\n\n\nLet me scrutinize this forecast:\n\n1. Base rate considerations: Chess rating progression tends to follow an S-curve, with rapid initial gains followed by slower progress at higher levels.\n\n2. The specific circumstances here are favorable:\n- Already very close to target (97.8% of the way there)\n- Demonstrated capability to make larger gains\n- Substantial remaining time\n- Multiple opportunities to hit the target (only needs to reach it once)\n\n3. Key uncertainties:\n- No data for 4+ months\n- Bullet chess volatility\n- Possible plateau\n\nThe 0.75 prediction appears reasonable given:\n- The small remaining gap relative to demonstrated progress\n- Multiple months to achieve it\n- Only needing to hit 2100 once for resolution\n- But accounting for uncertainties and increasing difficulty at higher ratings\n\n\n*0.75*", "probability": 0.75, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/nic_kup/will-alphatom-reach-2100-elo-in-bul", "market_probability": 0.6004114857408994, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill AlphaTom reach 2100 ELO in Bullet by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nIf AlphaTom (https://lichess.org/@/AlphaTom) reaches 2100 ELO at any point in 2024 this question resolves YES.\nOtherwise NO.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- nic (2024-06-06): Current ELO is 1937\n- nic (2024-07-29): Current ELO is 2054\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Dann Corbit wrote: \u2191 Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:59 am I think that because chess strength on the Elo scale is exponential, adding 1000 Elo to a very strong engine is incredibly difficult and adding Elo to a very weak engine is much easier. That having been said, I guess that SF will hit 1000 Elo (another +50) in two years. If they upgrade the hardware, it could be tomorrow. (Date published: Feb 26, 2006)\n- First, let\u2018s set a benchmark elo rating to aim for by examining AlphaZero\u2018s last published skill level. According to DeepMind\u2018s match analysis paper, AlphaZero finished its training at over 3400 elo \u2013 handily surpassing top human players. Now check out this table tracking elo ratings for the two strongest open-source chess engines over ... (Date published: May 13, 2024)\n- Hey everyone. I have been playing chess since the end of December of 2022, when chess began to gain massive popularity. I have played the game before, with zero knowledge of tactics or position, and I started at 400 elo. Now i am at middle 1000s. I have been playing every day. Is my progression rate... (Date published: Apr 8, 2023)\n- FIDE - World Chess Federation, Online ratings, individual calculations\n- The new FIDE Rating and Title Regulations were approved by the FIDE Council meeting on December 14, 2023. Early in 2023, the Qualifications Commission (QC) initiated a review of the FIDE rating regulations, inviting federations, officials and the public to contribute their thoughts and suggestions. The review was prompted by feedback from professional players and FIDE officials, highlighting a ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill AlphaTom reach 2100 ELO in Bullet by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"AlphaTom chess ELO progression 2024\"", "search_results": "Dann Corbit wrote: \u2191 Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:59 am I think that because chess strength on the Elo scale is exponential, adding 1000 Elo to a very strong engine is incredibly difficult and adding Elo to a very weak engine is much easier. That having been said, I guess that SF will hit 1000 Elo (another +50) in two years. If they upgrade the hardware, it could be tomorrow. (Date published: Feb 26, 2006)\n\nFirst, let\u2018s set a benchmark elo rating to aim for by examining AlphaZero\u2018s last published skill level. According to DeepMind\u2018s match analysis paper, AlphaZero finished its training at over 3400 elo \u2013 handily surpassing top human players. Now check out this table tracking elo ratings for the two strongest open-source chess engines over ... (Date published: May 13, 2024)\n\nHey everyone. I have been playing chess since the end of December of 2022, when chess began to gain massive popularity. I have played the game before, with zero knowledge of tactics or position, and I started at 400 elo. Now i am at middle 1000s. I have been playing every day. Is my progression rate... (Date published: Apr 8, 2023)\n\nFIDE - World Chess Federation, Online ratings, individual calculations\n\nThe new FIDE Rating and Title Regulations were approved by the FIDE Council meeting on December 14, 2023. Early in 2023, the Qualifications Commission (QC) initiated a review of the FIDE rating regulations, inviting federations, officials and the public to contribute their thoughts and suggestions. The review was prompted by feedback from professional players and FIDE officials, highlighting a ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The prologue of Stormlight Archive Book 5 features an entity claiming to be the Stormfather\n2. This entity behaves notably differently from how the Stormfather acts in books 1-4\n3. The market will resolve to \"No\" if the entity is revealed to be Ishar, Odium, Tanavast, one of the unmade, or any entity other than the Stormfather\n4. The prologue takes place chronologically before the main events of books 1-4\n5. The scene involves Gavilar and the Sons of Honor\n6. According to comments, some text changes suspiciously at the end of the prologue\n7. The Stormfather has a bond with Dalinar in the main timeline\n\n\n\n1. The suspicious behavior and personality difference from the known Stormfather character suggests potential deception (8/10)\n2. The suspicious text changes mentioned in comments could be an intentional clue from the author about deception (6/10)\n3. Gavilar was known to be involved with various cosmic entities and could have been deceived as part of larger machinations (7/10)\n4. The Sons of Honor's presence suggests possible manipulation of supernatural forces (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. The Stormfather could have evolved/changed over time, especially given his later bond with Dalinar (7/10)\n2. As noted in comments, someone trying to manipulate Gavilar wouldn't necessarily need to impersonate the Stormfather (8/10)\n3. The prologue takes place years before the main series, allowing for character development (6/10)\n4. Brandon Sanderson tends to prefer complex character development over simple deception plots (5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key tension here is between character evolution and deception. The chronological gap between the prologue and main series provides space for either interpretation. The suspicious text changes are a strong signal for deception, but could be misdirection.\n\nThe Stormfather's bond with Dalinar and subsequent character development in the main series suggests capacity for change. However, the degree of behavioral difference noted seems extreme for natural development.\n\nLooking at narrative patterns in Sanderson's work, he often uses seemingly suspicious behavior to drive plot development, but typically resolves it through complex character revelations rather than simple deception.\n\nThe involvement of the Sons of Honor and Gavilar's cosmic dealings adds layers of complexity that could support either interpretation.\n\n\n0.65\n\n\nReviewing this forecast, I need to consider:\n\n1. The base rate for major character deceptions in Sanderson's work is relatively low\n2. The market resolution specifically lists several possible entities who could be impersonating the Stormfather\n3. The detail about suspicious text changes seems like a particularly strong piece of evidence for deception\n4. The chronological placement before the main series means this could be setting up major revelations about the nature of various entities\n\nThe presence of multiple named potential impostors in the resolution criteria suggests this possibility has been seriously considered by readers who are familiar with the series.\n\nThe author's tendency to plant subtle clues (like text changes) that pay off later is well-established. This particular detail seems too specific to be coincidental.\n\nWhile character development is plausible, the combination of suspicious elements and specific resolution criteria suggests this is more likely to be revealed as deception.\n\n\n*0.35*", "probability": 0.35, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Rutger/stormlight-archive-is-the-character", "market_probability": 0.8518438935059219, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \n[Stormlight Archive] Is the character we see in the prologue chapter for SA5 the person they claim to be?\n \n**Description:**\nIn the prologue for Stormlight Archive book five we see an entity that is referred to as the Stormfather, but which behaves very differently from the Stormfather we have seen in previous books. This has led people to speculate whether the Stormfather in the prologue is the same spren we've seen in Stormlight 1-4. \n\nWill resolve to Yes if it turns out that the Stormfather from the prologue is actually Ishar, Odium, Tanavast, one of the unmade or any Spren or person other than character we know as the Stormfather.\n\nJun 21, 2:20pm: That should read \"Will resolve to No if it turns out that....\"\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- wasabipesto (2022-06-21): If someone was trying to gain Gavilar's trust/obedience they wouldn't need to impersonate the Stormfather to do it. I think it's far more likely SF has changed a bit in the last years than this being an impersonation. \n- Adorj\u00e1n M\u00e1rk Kov\u00e1cs (2024-10-15): (Stormlight 5 preview chapter spoiler)\\nWhich way will you resolve if the Stormfather in the prologue turns out to be the same entity we know from the other books, but it turns out that they are Tanavast (imo this is unlikely, but still, i've seen this theory multiple times now)?\\n Basically, I'm asking which is more important for the resolution: Stormfather of prologue = Stormfather of previous books?\\nOR \\nStormfather of prologue /= Entities listed in the description?\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Prologue to Stormlight 5 Introduction Hey, all! We wanted to send one final excerpt to you to both say thank you, and give a warning that the Kickstarter is coming to an end. ... Stormlight Archive Book Five. Prologue: To Live. ... Amaram arrived with a small collection of people\u2014high-level Sons of Honor. The Stormfather vanished, and Gavilar ...\n- Wind and Truth, Stormlight Archive book 5, is nearly here! This will be a general purpose megathread for non-spoilery announcements, references, discussion, questions, etc. leading up to the release of the book. (at which point this will give way to a fresh batch of megathreads, described below).\n- STORMLIGHT ARCHIVE BOOK FIVE DISCUSSION Book 5 ... But on account of an incredibly high post volume, please direct all Stormlight 5 discussion to this thread for the time being. ... I was skeptical that it was the Stormfather after listening to the prologue first. To me, the text changing at the end is extremely suspicious and just makes me ...\n- It's possible the Stormfather has seen similar growth during his time bonded to Dalinar - which could explain the shift in his personality between this prologue and the published works. Don't get me wrong, it definitely could be someone conning Gavilar - there's enough evidence to support that.\n- For the time being, please keep all discussion about the prologue to Book Five in this thread. Jump to content. Upcoming Login ... Discuss the Stormlight 5 Prologue Here Upcoming Login Change: Login with Display Name will Be Disabled (click for details) ... Obviously, Gavilar's visions and the way the prologue Stormfather talks about Dalinar ... (Date published: Mar 30, 2022)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \n[Stormlight Archive] Is the character we see in the prologue chapter for SA5 the person they claim to be?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Stormlight Archive book 5 prologue Stormfather preview chapter\"", "search_results": "Prologue to Stormlight 5 Introduction Hey, all! We wanted to send one final excerpt to you to both say thank you, and give a warning that the Kickstarter is coming to an end. ... Stormlight Archive Book Five. Prologue: To Live. ... Amaram arrived with a small collection of people\u2014high-level Sons of Honor. The Stormfather vanished, and Gavilar ...\n\nWind and Truth, Stormlight Archive book 5, is nearly here! This will be a general purpose megathread for non-spoilery announcements, references, discussion, questions, etc. leading up to the release of the book. (at which point this will give way to a fresh batch of megathreads, described below).\n\nSTORMLIGHT ARCHIVE BOOK FIVE DISCUSSION Book 5 ... But on account of an incredibly high post volume, please direct all Stormlight 5 discussion to this thread for the time being. ... I was skeptical that it was the Stormfather after listening to the prologue first. To me, the text changing at the end is extremely suspicious and just makes me ...\n\nIt's possible the Stormfather has seen similar growth during his time bonded to Dalinar - which could explain the shift in his personality between this prologue and the published works. Don't get me wrong, it definitely could be someone conning Gavilar - there's enough evidence to support that.\n\nFor the time being, please keep all discussion about the prologue to Book Five in this thread. Jump to content. Upcoming Login ... Discuss the Stormlight 5 Prologue Here Upcoming Login Change: Login with Display Name will Be Disabled (click for details) ... Obviously, Gavilar's visions and the way the prologue Stormfather talks about Dalinar ... (Date published: Mar 30, 2022)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. SF area has a 72% chance of M6.7+ earthquake within 30 years\n2. M4.0 is significantly smaller than M6.7 (logarithmic scale - about 1000x less energy)\n3. Question requires epicenter within 5km of SF, which is a very small area\n4. Most of California has 95%+ chance of damaging earthquake (M5+) in next century\n5. Search results focus on larger magnitudes (M5+, M6.7+) over longer timeframes (30-100 years)\n6. Today is Dec 1, 2024, so forecast only covers remaining 31 days of 2024\n7. M4.0 earthquakes are relatively common in California but precise location matters significantly\n\n\n\n1. 5km radius around SF is extremely specific and small compared to general Bay Area seismic forecasts (8/10)\n2. Only 31 days remaining in 2024 means very short time window (7/10)\n3. While SF is seismically active, most quakes occur along major faults which aren't centered directly under SF (6/10)\n4. Many \"SF earthquakes\" actually have epicenters in broader Bay Area outside 5km radius (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. SF is in highly seismically active region with frequent smaller quakes (6/10)\n2. M4.0 is relatively small - more common than the larger magnitudes discussed in sources (5/10)\n3. SF sits near several active fault lines (4/10)\n\n\n\nThe key challenge here is converting long-term probabilities of larger earthquakes into short-term probability of smaller, precisely located quake. The 5km radius requirement is extremely restrictive - much smaller than the \"San Francisco region\" discussed in sources.\n\nBasic probability theory suggests:\n- If 72% chance of M6.7+ in 30 years for broader region\n- Then chance of M4.0+ in 31 days in specific 5km radius must be much lower\n- But M4.0 is much more common than M6.7\n\nNeed to consider:\n1. Time scaling (31/10950 days \u2248 0.3% of 30-year period)\n2. Area scaling (5km radius vs broader region)\n3. Magnitude scaling (M4.0 vs M6.7+)\n\n\n0.02\n\n\nLet's sanity check:\n- 0.02 implies about 1/50 chance in remaining month\n- Annualized, this would be roughly 24% chance per year\n- This seems reasonable given:\n * M4.0+ quakes occur multiple times yearly in broader Bay Area\n * But specific location requirement drastically reduces probability\n * Most M4.0+ quakes occur along major faults rather than directly under SF\n\nHistorical data would be very helpful here but isn't provided. The sources focus on longer-term, larger-magnitude risks which makes direct probability estimation challenging.\n\nKey factors supporting final estimate:\n1. Extremely specific location requirement\n2. Very short remaining timeframe\n3. While M4.0 isn't rare for region, most occur outside 5km radius\n4. Need to avoid overestimating dramatic events due to news coverage bias\n\n\n*0.02*", "probability": 0.02, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Mattfr/will-an-earthquake-of-40-or-more-wi", "market_probability": 0.12029440131181483, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill an earthquake of 4.0 or more with an epicenter within 5 km of San Francisco happen in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nSince 8/2015:\n\n[image]\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Nearly all of California has a more than 95% chance of a damaging earthquake in the next century, according to a new United States Geological Survey map.. The new USGS National Seismic Hazard ... (Date published: Jan 16, 2024)\n- San Francisco Bay area: Within the next 30 years the probability is: 72% that an earthquake measuring magnitude 6.7; 51% that an earthquake measuring magnitude 7; 20% that an earthquake measuring magnitude 7.5; will occur in the San Francisco region. Learn More: Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 3\n- It supercedes the equivalent area of U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-444 (Knudsen and others, 2000), which covers the larger 9-county San Francisco Bay region. The report consists of (1) a spatial database, (2) two small-scale colored maps ( (Date published: Jun 8, 2023)\n- The National Seismic Hazard Model, developed by the United States Geological Survey, says that most of California has at least a 75% chance of damaging earthquake shaking in the next 100 years ... (Date published: Jan 23, 2024)\n- On the map, the color red identifies places with the highest earthquake shaking risk \u2014 a 95% chance an earthquake of magnitude 5 or higher will occur in the next 100 years and bring slight or ... (Date published: Jan 24, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill an earthquake of 4.0 or more with an epicenter within 5 km of San Francisco happen in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "san francisco earthquake risk 2024 geological forecast", "search_results": "Nearly all of California has a more than 95% chance of a damaging earthquake in the next century, according to a new United States Geological Survey map.. The new USGS National Seismic Hazard ... (Date published: Jan 16, 2024)\n\nSan Francisco Bay area: Within the next 30 years the probability is: 72% that an earthquake measuring magnitude 6.7; 51% that an earthquake measuring magnitude 7; 20% that an earthquake measuring magnitude 7.5; will occur in the San Francisco region. Learn More: Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 3\n\nIt supercedes the equivalent area of U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-444 (Knudsen and others, 2000), which covers the larger 9-county San Francisco Bay region. The report consists of (1) a spatial database, (2) two small-scale colored maps ( (Date published: Jun 8, 2023)\n\nThe National Seismic Hazard Model, developed by the United States Geological Survey, says that most of California has at least a 75% chance of damaging earthquake shaking in the next 100 years ... (Date published: Jan 23, 2024)\n\nOn the map, the color red identifies places with the highest earthquake shaking risk \u2014 a 95% chance an earthquake of magnitude 5 or higher will occur in the next 100 years and bring slight or ... (Date published: Jan 24, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. California has 15,700 known faults, with more being discovered yearly\n2. Southern California experienced 15 independent seismic sequences with at least magnitude 4+ earthquakes in 2024 (as of October)\n3. The last 6.0+ magnitude earthquake in California was the Ridgecrest Earthquake in July 2019\n4. The time period in question is roughly 5 months (July 21 - December 31, 2024)\n5. Tectonic forces are continuously building tension in the San Andreas fault system\n6. Historical records show California has experienced relatively low seismic activity over the past century\n7. Recent seismic monitoring (as of April 2024) showed no typical precursor signals that often precede major earthquakes\n\n\n\n1. Historical precedent shows relatively low seismic activity in the past century (7/10)\n2. The specific time window is only about 5 months, making it less likely than a full year prediction (8/10)\n3. Recent seismic monitoring showed no typical precursor signals (5/10)\n4. Most seismic activity in California tends to be below magnitude 6.0 (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. California has an extremely large number of known faults (15,700+) providing many potential sources (7/10)\n2. Continued tectonic pressure building in the San Andreas fault system increases risk over time (6/10)\n3. Multiple magnitude 4+ earthquakes in 2024 indicate ongoing seismic activity (5/10)\n4. The fact that it's been several years since the last 6.0+ quake could suggest accumulated tension (4/10)\n\n\n\nLooking at this systematically:\n1. Base rate consideration: California experiences roughly one magnitude 6.0+ earthquake every few years\n2. The 5-month window significantly reduces the probability compared to annual rates\n3. The multiple magnitude 4+ quakes in 2024 suggest active fault systems, but don't necessarily predict larger quakes\n4. The lack of precursor signals is noteworthy but not definitive\n5. The long period since the last major quake cuts both ways - it could indicate either stability or building pressure\n\nThe key consideration is properly calibrating the probability for the short time window while accounting for California's inherent seismic risk profile.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n\n1. Historical data suggests California averages roughly one 6.0+ magnitude earthquake every 3-4 years, which would translate to about 0.25-0.33 probability annually\n2. The 5-month window should reduce this by ~60% as a first approximation\n3. The continued build-up of tectonic pressure means the probability isn't simply proportional to time\n4. Recent seismic activity patterns suggest normal background levels rather than unusual activity\n5. The prediction window includes winter months, which historically don't show significant seasonal variation in major earthquake frequency\n\nMy tentative probability appears reasonable given these factors, though I want to ensure I'm not overweighting recent activity patterns versus long-term geological processes.\n\n\n*0.17*", "probability": 0.17, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Michael43cd/will-a-magnitude-60-or-higher-earth", "market_probability": 0.02809684283106776, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill a magnitude 6.0 or higher earthquake occur in California between July 21, 2024 and December 31, 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nWill a magnitude 6.0 or higher earthquake occur in California between July 21, 2024 and December 31, 2024?\n\nAuthoritative Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS)\n\nLast Occurrence: Ridgecrest Earthquake, July 2019\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Beautiful beaches. Majestic mountains. Hollywood. One more thing Southern California is known for: earthquakes. Yet for a long time, and to the great relief of millions, the many active faults ... (Date published: Oct 16, 2024)\n- November 27, 2024. California is home to 15,700 known faults, and scientists discover more each year. Earthquake fault locations, recent earthquakes in the past 7 days, and earthquake risk in California. ... California Earthquake Risk - Seismic Risk for CA's Major Metros | CEA.\n- But there is a problem\u2014seismic activity related to the fault does not indicate any signs of an earthquake. Usually, they note, low-frequency waves attenuate prior to a quake, while high ... (Date published: Apr 10, 2024)\n- By the count of seismologist Lucy Jones, a Caltech research associate, Southern California has felt 15 independent seismic sequences this year, with at least one magnitude 4 or higher earthquake ... (Date published: Oct 11, 2024)\n- \u201cWe are fortunate that seismic activity in California has been relatively low over the past century. But we know that tectonic forces are continually tightening the springs of the San Andreas fault system, making big quakes inevitable,\u201d said Tom Jordan of the Southern California Earthquake Center and a co-author of the study.\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill a magnitude 6.0 or higher earthquake occur in California between July 21, 2024 and December 31, 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "california earthquake fault line seismic activity forecast 2024", "search_results": "Beautiful beaches. Majestic mountains. Hollywood. One more thing Southern California is known for: earthquakes. Yet for a long time, and to the great relief of millions, the many active faults ... (Date published: Oct 16, 2024)\n\nNovember 27, 2024. California is home to 15,700 known faults, and scientists discover more each year. Earthquake fault locations, recent earthquakes in the past 7 days, and earthquake risk in California. ... California Earthquake Risk - Seismic Risk for CA's Major Metros | CEA.\n\nBut there is a problem\u2014seismic activity related to the fault does not indicate any signs of an earthquake. Usually, they note, low-frequency waves attenuate prior to a quake, while high ... (Date published: Apr 10, 2024)\n\nBy the count of seismologist Lucy Jones, a Caltech research associate, Southern California has felt 15 independent seismic sequences this year, with at least one magnitude 4 or higher earthquake ... (Date published: Oct 11, 2024)\n\n\u201cWe are fortunate that seismic activity in California has been relatively low over the past century. But we know that tectonic forces are continually tightening the springs of the San Andreas fault system, making big quakes inevitable,\u201d said Tom Jordan of the Southern California Earthquake Center and a co-author of the study."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me approach this systematically:\n\n\n1. Lex Fridman has already trained/sparred with Elon Musk in preparation for the proposed Musk-Zuckerberg fight (June 2023)\n2. Fridman is a Brazilian jiu-jitsu black belt and podcaster with connections to both tech figures\n3. The Musk-Zuckerberg fight itself never materialized, with Zuckerberg stating in August 2023 that Musk \"isn't serious\"\n4. As of July 2024, there were still discussions about the fight potentially happening\n5. No concrete plans or agreements for a tag team match have been publicly announced\n6. Tag team matches are extremely rare in professional combat sports\n\n\n\n1. The original one-on-one fight never materialized despite months of discussion, making a more complex arrangement even less likely (9/10)\n2. Tag team matches aren't a standard format in legitimate combat sports, especially for high-profile events (8/10)\n3. Zuckerberg has already expressed frustration with Musk's lack of seriousness, making him unlikely to agree to an even more unusual format (7/10)\n4. Liability and safety concerns would be significantly higher for a tag team match with amateur fighters (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Fridman has already demonstrated willingness to train with Musk and has relationships with both fighters (4/10)\n2. The unconventional nature might appeal to Musk, who often seeks attention-grabbing scenarios (3/10)\n3. A tag team format could reduce individual pressure on the participants while maintaining entertainment value (2/10)\n\n\n\nThe fundamental question here involves multiple conjunctive conditions:\n1. The original fight needs to happen\n2. It needs to be modified into a tag team format\n3. Fridman needs to be specifically chosen as Musk's partner\n4. All parties need to agree\n\nEach of these conditions has a low probability of occurring, and when multiplied together, the probability becomes extremely low. The fact that the original fight hasn't materialized after more than a year of discussion is particularly telling.\n\nThe sources suggest this is more of a media spectacle than a serious sporting event, and while that might normally increase the chances of unusual formats, the liability and practical concerns of a tag team match with amateur fighters make it highly implausible.\n\n\n0.01\n\n\nReflecting on this forecast:\n\n1. Base rate considerations:\n- Celebrity \"fights\" that get discussed rarely happen\n- When they do happen, they're almost always simple one-on-one matches\n- Tag team matches in combat sports are exceptionally rare even among professionals\n\n2. Specific factors:\n- The original fight's failure to materialize suggests even simpler arrangements are unlikely\n- The logistics and safety concerns of a tag team match would be significantly more complicated\n- Zuckerberg's expressed frustration indicates decreasing, not increasing, likelihood of any match\n\n3. Time consideration:\n- The market closes in December 2024\n- Given the history of delays and non-commitment, this relatively short timeframe further reduces probability\n\nMy initial estimate of 1% might actually be generous given the multiplicative improbability of all required conditions being met. However, given the unconventional nature of the participants involved and their ability to make unexpected things happen, I'll maintain a probability slightly above zero.\n\n\n*0.01*", "probability": 0.01, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/CryptoNeoLiberalist/will-lex-fridman-tag-team-zuckerbur", "market_probability": 0.010000000000000002, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Lex Fridman tag team Zuckerburg with Elon?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Fredi9999 (2023-06-27): https://twitter.com/lexfridman/status/1673836162937417728\n- FoatGucker (2023-10-14): I wish they would. That would be so cool, but nah fam. \n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Podcaster and Brazilian jiujitsu black belt Lex Fridman tweeted photos of himself sparring with Elon Musk ahead of the Twitter owner\u2019s cage fight with Mark Zuckerberg. (Date published: Jun 28, 2023)\n- Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk have agreed to a cage match after a social media dust-up. No time or date has been set, but UFC president Dana White is reportedly mediating discussions around the fight. (Date published: Jul 25, 2024)\n- Elon Musk \"isn't serious\" about holding a cage fight and \"it's time to move on\", Mark Zuckerberg has said. In a post on his social media site Threads, external, the Meta boss said he had offered ... (Date published: Aug 13, 2023)\n- Twitter owner Elon Musk has officially begun training for his cage match with Meta's Mark Zuckerberg as his training partner shared photos of their session online. ... tweeted Lex Fridman, a ... (Date published: Jun 28, 2023)\n- Elon Musk sparred with podcaster Lex Fridman last year ahead of the planned match. Lex Fridman/Twitter \u201cI\u2019ll fight Zuckerberg any place, any time, any rules,\u201d Musk told a reporter when asked ... (Date published: Jul 25, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Lex Fridman tag team Zuckerburg with Elon?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Lex Fridman Zuckerberg Elon Musk cage match\"", "search_results": "Podcaster and Brazilian jiujitsu black belt Lex Fridman tweeted photos of himself sparring with Elon Musk ahead of the Twitter owner\u2019s cage fight with Mark Zuckerberg. (Date published: Jun 28, 2023)\n\nMark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk have agreed to a cage match after a social media dust-up. No time or date has been set, but UFC president Dana White is reportedly mediating discussions around the fight. (Date published: Jul 25, 2024)\n\nElon Musk \"isn't serious\" about holding a cage fight and \"it's time to move on\", Mark Zuckerberg has said. In a post on his social media site Threads, external, the Meta boss said he had offered ... (Date published: Aug 13, 2023)\n\nTwitter owner Elon Musk has officially begun training for his cage match with Meta's Mark Zuckerberg as his training partner shared photos of their session online. ... tweeted Lex Fridman, a ... (Date published: Jun 28, 2023)\n\nElon Musk sparred with podcaster Lex Fridman last year ahead of the planned match. Lex Fridman/Twitter \u201cI\u2019ll fight Zuckerberg any place, any time, any rules,\u201d Musk told a reporter when asked ... (Date published: Jul 25, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. CDC's 2019 AR Threats Report showed deaths from antimicrobial-resistant infections had decreased by 18% overall and 30% in hospitals\n2. New data from July 2024 showed six bacterial antimicrobial-resistant hospital-onset infections increased by 20% during the COVID-19 pandemic\n3. CDC continues to actively monitor and report on antibiotic resistance threats\n4. The CDC classifies antibiotic-resistant threats in categories: urgent, serious, and concerning\n5. MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) remains a significant concern being tracked in hospital settings\n6. The CDC released updated burden estimates in 2021-2022 specifically addressing healthcare-setting pathogens\n\n\n\n1. Historical trend before COVID-19 showed decreasing deaths (18% reduction), suggesting effective control measures (Strength: 7/10)\n2. CDC and healthcare systems have significant experience managing antibiotic resistance and implementing preventive measures (Strength: 6/10)\n3. One month remains in 2024, making it unlikely for a drastically different report to emerge before year-end (Strength: 8/10)\n4. The 20% increase during COVID was specific to hospital-onset infections, not necessarily translating to overall mortality (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\n1. The 20% increase in resistant infections during COVID-19 could lead to higher mortality figures in subsequent reports (Strength: 6/10)\n2. Healthcare-associated infections often involve more resistant strains, and hospital infections increased during pandemic (Strength: 5/10)\n3. There's still all of 2025 for new reports to emerge showing increased deaths (Strength: 4/10)\n\n\n\nThe key tension here is between pre-COVID improvements and COVID-era setbacks. The 20% increase in resistant infections during COVID is concerning, but it's specific to hospital-onset cases and doesn't necessarily translate directly to mortality. The pre-COVID trend of reducing deaths by 18% suggests robust systems for managing antibiotic resistance.\n\nThe timing is also crucial - with only one month left in 2024 and 2025 remaining, we need to consider both:\na) The likelihood of a new report being released\nb) The likelihood of that report showing such high mortality numbers\n\nThe 70,000 deaths threshold seems quite high given historical context and improvements in management, even accounting for COVID-related setbacks.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing my initial assessment:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: Major health organizations tend to be conservative in mortality estimates and require substantial evidence before reporting significant increases.\n\n2. Timeline analysis: The CDC has already released multiple updates in 2024, making another major revision unlikely in the immediate term.\n\n3. Magnitude check: The 70,000 deaths threshold would represent a dramatic increase from previous levels, which seems unlikely given:\n - Pre-existing downward trend\n - Healthcare systems' adaptation to COVID-related challenges\n - Ongoing preventive measures\n\n4. The COVID impact, while significant, appears more focused on infection rates rather than mortality rates, and systems have had time to adapt since the peak of the pandemic.\n\nMy initial estimate of 0.15 might actually be slightly high given these considerations, particularly the magnitude of change required to reach the specified threshold.\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/MetaculusBot/at-any-point-before-the-end-of-the", "market_probability": 0.5385320848342502, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nAt any point before the end of the calendar year 2025, will the CDC or another credible source report that at least 70,000 people die annually from antibiotic-resistant infections in the US?\n \n**Description:**\nFrom https://www.metaculus.com/questions/2937/will-the-number-of-deaths-from-antibiotic-resistant-infections-per-year-double-by-the-end-of-2025/\n\nClose date updated to 2024-12-31 11:59 pm\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- In 2019, CDC's Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2019 (AR Threats Report) noted that dedicated prevention and infection control efforts in the U.S. reduced deaths from antimicrobial-resistant infections by 18% overall and by nearly 30% in hospitals. Additional data shows these reductions continued until 2020 when the U.S ... (Date published: Jul 16, 2024)\n- Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A type of staph bacteria that is resistant to many antibiotics. In this report, the MRSA data include all laboratory identified hospital-onset MRSA bacteremia (bloodstream infections) reported to National Healthcare Safety Network from all inpatient locations in the facility. (Date published: Nov 25, 2024)\n- 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report Print Materials & Fact Sheets ... In July 2024, CDC published a fact sheet using new data A to update the U.S. burden of the following seven ... The new data A show that six bacterial antimicrobial-resistant hospital-onset infections B increased by a combined 20% during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to ... (Date published: Jul 16, 2024)\n- CDC's Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2019 (2019 AR Threats Report) includes national death and infection estimates for 18 antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and fungi. CDC lists germs in three categories\u2014urgent, serious and concerning\u2014and a watch list. This report underscores the continued threat of antimicrobial resistance in the U.S., the actions taken to combat this ... (Date published: Jun 6, 2024)\n- ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE THREATS in the United States, 2021-2022 CDC used new data1 to analyze the U.S. burden of the following antimicrobial-resistant pathogens typically found in healthcare settings: CDC previously reported that the burden of these pathogens increased in the United States in 2020 in the COVID-19 Impact Report.\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nAt any point before the end of the calendar year 2025, will the CDC or another credible source report that at least 70,000 people die annually from antibiotic-resistant infections in the US?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"CDC antibiotic-resistant infection deaths annual report 2024\"", "search_results": "In 2019, CDC's Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2019 (AR Threats Report) noted that dedicated prevention and infection control efforts in the U.S. reduced deaths from antimicrobial-resistant infections by 18% overall and by nearly 30% in hospitals. Additional data shows these reductions continued until 2020 when the U.S ... (Date published: Jul 16, 2024)\n\nMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A type of staph bacteria that is resistant to many antibiotics. In this report, the MRSA data include all laboratory identified hospital-onset MRSA bacteremia (bloodstream infections) reported to National Healthcare Safety Network from all inpatient locations in the facility. (Date published: Nov 25, 2024)\n\n2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report Print Materials & Fact Sheets ... In July 2024, CDC published a fact sheet using new data A to update the U.S. burden of the following seven ... The new data A show that six bacterial antimicrobial-resistant hospital-onset infections B increased by a combined 20% during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to ... (Date published: Jul 16, 2024)\n\nCDC's Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2019 (2019 AR Threats Report) includes national death and infection estimates for 18 antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and fungi. CDC lists germs in three categories\u2014urgent, serious and concerning\u2014and a watch list. This report underscores the continued threat of antimicrobial resistance in the U.S., the actions taken to combat this ... (Date published: Jun 6, 2024)\n\nANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE THREATS in the United States, 2021-2022 CDC used new data1 to analyze the U.S. burden of the following antimicrobial-resistant pathogens typically found in healthcare settings: CDC previously reported that the burden of these pathogens increased in the United States in 2020 in the COVID-19 Impact Report."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. One Piece is a globally popular manga/anime series\n2. The question requires an explicit reference to One Piece (not just using the phrase \"one piece\" in an unrelated context)\n3. Any U.S. politician at any level qualifies (including local politicians)\n4. Social media posts count as valid references\n5. The time window is relatively short (remaining ~1 month in 2024)\n6. There are thousands of local politicians across the U.S.\n7. One Piece has gained significant mainstream cultural relevance in 2024\n8. The Netflix live-action adaptation increased Western awareness of One Piece\n9. Politicians occasionally reference pop culture to connect with younger voters\n\n\n\n1. Most politicians, especially older ones, are unlikely to be familiar with anime/manga (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Very short remaining time window limits opportunities (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Politicians typically stick to safer, more mainstream cultural references (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Risk of appearing unprofessional or trivial by referencing anime (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Large number of total U.S. politicians means only one needs to make reference (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Younger local politicians more likely to be familiar with One Piece (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Social media inclusion dramatically increases opportunities (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Recent Netflix adaptation increased mainstream awareness (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key mechanism here is the intersection of:\n1. The large pool of potential politicians (thousands)\n2. The low bar for what constitutes a reference (including social media)\n3. The very short remaining time window\n\nThe question is essentially asking if, out of thousands of politicians (including young local ones), at least one will make any kind of One Piece reference in the next month. The large number of politicians is a significant factor pushing the probability up, but the very short time window is a major limiting factor.\n\nGiven the Netflix adaptation and increasing mainstream presence, some younger politicians might see this as an opportunity to connect with constituents, particularly in areas with younger demographics.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nThe prior probability for any specific cultural phenomenon being referenced by a politician in a given month is quite low. However, One Piece has unusual mainstream penetration for an anime series, and the pool of potential politicians is very large.\n\nA key consideration is that we only need one instance among thousands of politicians. This is a classic disjunctive scenario where the probability increases with each additional independent chance. However, these chances are not independent - they're correlated by factors like the general likelihood of politicians referencing anime.\n\nThe short time window is particularly significant - if this was for all of 2024, the probability would be substantially higher. Having only one month remaining severely limits opportunities.\n\nThe 0.15 initial estimate feels roughly calibrated when considering these factors. It's low enough to reflect the inherent unlikelihood of politicians referencing anime, but high enough to account for the large number of potential politicians and One Piece's cultural relevance.\n\n\n*0.15*", "probability": 0.15, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/OnePieceExplained/will-any-us-politician-reference-on", "market_probability": 0.2505595210094219, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill any U.S. Politician reference One Piece in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nWith the ever-rising popularity of One Piece across the globe, we are bound to see the cultural phenomenon make its way into various parts of American culture. We've already seen several celebrities across the entertainment and sports sectors embrace the series, it's only a matter of time before politicians recognize it as well.\n\nThe reference must be made in a public forum and be explicit (i.e. simply using the phrase \"one piece\" does not count). Any U.S. Politician is eligible, but must be verified across all of their public-facing channels and social media.\n\nhttps://www.youtube.com/@onepieceexplained/\n\n\n(https://www.youtube.com/embed/ShfXHkybCNc)\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- dwax (2024-03-15): Does social media count as a public forum?\n- OnePieceExplained (2024-03-15): For this question's purposes, yes!\n- Lisa Marsh (2024-03-16): What counts as a US politician? I\u2019m sure there must be some city councillor or school board member who\u2019s mentioned it already!\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- 24% chance. With the ever-rising popularity of One Piece across the globe, we are bound to see the cultural phenomenon make its way into various parts of American culture. We've already seen several celebrities across the entertainment and sports sectors embrace the series, it's only a matter of time before politicians recognize it as well. The reference must be made in a public forum and be ... (Date published: Apr 3, 2024)\n- Eiichiro Oda has created a vast world in One Piece, and the amount of characters present in it is no joke. Every arc brings with it a new catalog of characters, and some of them look too similar to pop culture icons to ignore. One character from the series looks so similar to Donald Trump that the resemblance just cannot be ignored. In fact, even One Piece\u2019s animation studio, Toei, is ...\n- One man told me he liked Charlie Kirk, the Turning Point founder. Another predicted the GOP would nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2028. Another said he liked Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah. (Date published: Nov 4, 2024)\n- US politicians, celebrities blast Trump-allied comedian for calling Puerto Rico 'garbage' By Gram Slattery , Helen Coster and Andrea Shalal October 29, 2024 10:11 PM UTC Updated ago (Date published: Oct 28, 2024)\n- Donald Trump is planting the seeds of his own political demise. The corrupt, incompetent and extremist men and women he\u2019s appointing to many of the most critical posts in his cabinet are direct ... (Date published: Nov 17, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill any U.S. Politician reference One Piece in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"US politician One Piece reference 2024\"", "search_results": "24% chance. With the ever-rising popularity of One Piece across the globe, we are bound to see the cultural phenomenon make its way into various parts of American culture. We've already seen several celebrities across the entertainment and sports sectors embrace the series, it's only a matter of time before politicians recognize it as well. The reference must be made in a public forum and be ... (Date published: Apr 3, 2024)\n\nEiichiro Oda has created a vast world in One Piece, and the amount of characters present in it is no joke. Every arc brings with it a new catalog of characters, and some of them look too similar to pop culture icons to ignore. One character from the series looks so similar to Donald Trump that the resemblance just cannot be ignored. In fact, even One Piece\u2019s animation studio, Toei, is ...\n\nOne man told me he liked Charlie Kirk, the Turning Point founder. Another predicted the GOP would nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2028. Another said he liked Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah. (Date published: Nov 4, 2024)\n\nUS politicians, celebrities blast Trump-allied comedian for calling Puerto Rico 'garbage' By Gram Slattery , Helen Coster and Andrea Shalal October 29, 2024 10:11 PM UTC Updated ago (Date published: Oct 28, 2024)\n\nDonald Trump is planting the seeds of his own political demise. The corrupt, incompetent and extremist men and women he\u2019s appointing to many of the most critical posts in his cabinet are direct ... (Date published: Nov 17, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Jensen Huang visited China in January 2024 for Nvidia's Beijing New Year Party\n2. He was seen in both Beijing and Shanghai during this trip\n3. This was his first visit to China in over 4 years\n4. The visit included cultural engagement (participating in traditional Chinese dance)\n5. The market clarified that only mainland China visits count (not Taiwan)\n6. The question asks about visits in 2024, and we already know about one visit\n7. The market closes December 31, 2024\n8. US-China tensions and AI chip sanctions are ongoing contextual factors\n9. Today's date is December 1, 2024, meaning most of 2024 has already passed\n\n\n\n1. Given he already made a significant visit in January 2024, there might not be business necessity for another visit (7/10)\n2. Ongoing US-China tensions and chip sanctions could make additional visits politically sensitive (6/10)\n3. With only one month left in 2024, there's limited time for another visit (8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Jensen Huang has ALREADY visited China in 2024 (January), which automatically resolves this question as YES (10/10)\n2. The visit demonstrated Nvidia's continued commitment to maintaining relationships with China despite tensions (5/10)\n3. Historical pattern suggests CEO visits to major markets are regular occurrences (4/10)\n\n\n\nThis is actually a resolved question. The market description asks if the Nvidia CEO will visit China in 2024, and we have clear evidence from multiple sources that Jensen Huang visited both Beijing and Shanghai in January 2024. The market creator clarified that mainland China counts (which both Beijing and Shanghai are), and Taiwan does not.\n\nThe fact that we're forecasting this in December 2024 actually makes this easier - we don't need to predict future behavior, we just need to verify past events. The sources clearly document Huang's visit, including specific details about his activities (dancing, wearing traditional clothing) that make this unambiguous.\n\nWhile we could consider probabilities of additional visits in December 2024, it's irrelevant to the question resolution - even a single visit in 2024 makes this a YES.\n\n\n1.0\n\n\nLet me do a sanity check on my 1.0 probability:\n\n1. Source reliability: We have multiple independent sources reporting the January 2024 visit, including specific details and photos/videos\n2. Market interpretation: The market creator specifically clarified that mainland China counts\n3. Question resolution: The visit to Beijing and Shanghai clearly satisfies the criteria\n4. Event verification: The evidence is recent (2024) and unambiguous\n5. Logical consistency: Since we only need one visit in 2024 for a YES resolution, and we have verified such a visit occurred, this is a deterministic outcome\n\nIn this case, a 1.0 probability is appropriate because we're not predicting a future event but verifying a historical fact that has already occurred and is well-documented. This is one of those rare cases where absolute certainty is justified because we're dealing with a resolved historical event rather than a future prediction.\n\n\n*1.0*", "probability": 1.0, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Krypton/will-nvidia-ceo-visit-to-china-in-2", "market_probability": 0.47497993266596117, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Nvidia CEO visit to China in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- duck_master (2024-05-01): is this about all of 2024?\\nFYI, Jensen Huang went to China in January 2024 (and this was extensively reported eg \\nby \\nFortune.com\\n).\n- Krypton (2024-05-01): In future\n- ElectricSteam (2024-05-24): Is Taiwan accounted as China, or specifically mainland China?\n- Krypton (2024-05-25): Diplomatically, geopolitically it\u2019s hard to answer. However, yes I mean mainland China in this market.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, the US artificial intelligence chip company, has visited Beijing to attend the company's 2024 Beijing New Year Party, during the senior executive's first trip to the ... (Date published: Jan 21, 2024)\n- On Jan.20, Nvidia China employees shared photos on social media of Jensen Huang, the company\u2019s founder and CEO, at its annual meeting in Shanghai. During the internal event, he was seen wearing a flower-patterned shirt from the northeastern region of China and dancing a traditional Chinese folk dance from the same region. (Date published: Jan 22, 2024)\n- Videos that circulated on social media showing Jensen Huang, president and CEO of Nvidia, dancing in a Harbin-style cotton coat were proven to have happened at the company's 2024 Beijing New Year ... (Date published: Jan 21, 2024)\n- Why it matters: Amid increasing China-US tensions and more AI-chip sanctions being placed on the Asian nation, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has just visited the country for the first time in over four ... (Date published: Jan 22, 2024)\n- In video clips circulating online, Huang, dressed in a floral-patterned vest, participates in Yangge, a type of folk dance from northern China. Huang\u2019s last public appearance in China was in ... (Date published: Jan 22, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Nvidia CEO visit to China in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang China visit 2024 planned\"", "search_results": "Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, the US artificial intelligence chip company, has visited Beijing to attend the company's 2024 Beijing New Year Party, during the senior executive's first trip to the ... (Date published: Jan 21, 2024)\n\nOn Jan.20, Nvidia China employees shared photos on social media of Jensen Huang, the company\u2019s founder and CEO, at its annual meeting in Shanghai. During the internal event, he was seen wearing a flower-patterned shirt from the northeastern region of China and dancing a traditional Chinese folk dance from the same region. (Date published: Jan 22, 2024)\n\nVideos that circulated on social media showing Jensen Huang, president and CEO of Nvidia, dancing in a Harbin-style cotton coat were proven to have happened at the company's 2024 Beijing New Year ... (Date published: Jan 21, 2024)\n\nWhy it matters: Amid increasing China-US tensions and more AI-chip sanctions being placed on the Asian nation, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has just visited the country for the first time in over four ... (Date published: Jan 22, 2024)\n\nIn video clips circulating online, Huang, dressed in a floral-patterned vest, participates in Yangge, a type of folk dance from northern China. Huang\u2019s last public appearance in China was in ... (Date published: Jan 22, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Trump was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in Michigan's investigation into 2020 election interference (April 2024)\n2. 16 fake electors in Michigan were already indicted in July 2023\n3. Today is December 1, 2024, leaving only 30 days until market close\n4. Michigan AG's office has been actively investigating Trump's role in election interference\n5. Trump faces multiple other legal challenges including federal indictment for election interference\n6. Michigan's prosecution of fake electors demonstrates willingness to pursue election interference cases\n\n\n\n1. Very limited time remaining in 2024 (just 30 days) makes logistics of preparing and filing new charges challenging (8/10)\n2. If Michigan prosecutors had sufficient evidence to indict Trump, they likely would have done so earlier alongside the fake electors or when naming him as unindicted co-conspirator (7/10)\n3. Prosecutors may be waiting for resolution of federal cases first to avoid interference or redundancy (6/10)\n4. Being named an unindicted co-conspirator might indicate prosecutors' strategic choice to use Trump as witness rather than defendant (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Trump being named unindicted co-conspirator suggests prosecutors have evidence of his involvement (6/10)\n2. Michigan AG's office has shown willingness to prosecute election interference cases aggressively (5/10)\n3. Recent developments in other Trump legal cases may have provided additional evidence or precedent (4/10)\n4. Michigan prosecutors might want to file charges before potential return to presidency (4/10)\n\n\n\nThe time constraint is the most significant factor here - with only 30 days remaining, the logistics of preparing and filing an indictment become very challenging. The fact that Trump was named an unindicted co-conspirator in April 2024 but wasn't indicted in the following 7+ months suggests prosecutors either lack sufficient evidence or have strategically chosen not to indict.\n\nThe existence of parallel federal prosecution for similar conduct likely reduces the urgency and necessity of state charges. Michigan prosecutors have already achieved significant results by indicting the fake electors, potentially reducing the imperative to charge Trump himself.\n\nWhile there are reasons supporting potential indictment, they are generally weaker than the countervailing factors, especially given the very short timeframe remaining.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nLet's consider base rates: Trump has been indicted in multiple jurisdictions over election interference, suggesting some non-negligible base rate for such charges. However, most jurisdictions that investigated Trump's election conduct have not brought charges.\n\nThe extremely short remaining timeline is crucial - even if prosecutors were planning to indict, the administrative and procedural requirements might push timing beyond December 31. This consideration alone should push the probability quite low.\n\nMy tentative forecast of 0.15 appears reasonable given:\n1. The very limited remaining time\n2. Lack of action despite months of investigation\n3. Existence of federal prosecution covering similar conduct\n4. Historical pattern of most investigating jurisdictions not bringing charges\n\nThe main uncertainty is whether preparations for charges are already nearly complete and simply awaiting filing, but the lack of recent news or leaks about imminent charges argues against this possibility.\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/BTE/will-trump-be-indicted-in-michigan", "market_probability": 0.05431199329839715, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Trump be indicted in Michigan by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- People of the State of Michigan v. Berden et al. is a state criminal prosecution concerning the Trump fake electors plot in Michigan.The sixteen defendants are accused of producing and attempting to use a false certificate of ascertainment containing electoral votes for Donald Trump, who had lost the 2020 U.S. presidential election in Michigan.The defendants were indicted in July 2023 on ...\n- Former President Donald Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michigan attorney general\u2019s probe into the attempts to overturn the 2020 election in that state, an investigator testified ... (Date published: Apr 25, 2024)\n- Trump lost two defamation cases to Carroll in 2023 and 2024 in federal court after a jury found him liable for sexually abusing the onetime columnist and subsequently defaming her. Two juries ... (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n- Federal indictment in 2020 election interference case. Trump is accused of participating in a scheme to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election to now ... (Date published: Sep 13, 2024)\n- Former President Donald J. Trump was named as an unindicted co-conspirator on Wednesday in the investigation by the Michigan attorney general\u2019s office into interference in the 2020 election. (Date published: Apr 24, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Trump be indicted in Michigan by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Trump Michigan indictment status 2024 criminal case\"", "search_results": "People of the State of Michigan v. Berden et al. is a state criminal prosecution concerning the Trump fake electors plot in Michigan.The sixteen defendants are accused of producing and attempting to use a false certificate of ascertainment containing electoral votes for Donald Trump, who had lost the 2020 U.S. presidential election in Michigan.The defendants were indicted in July 2023 on ...\n\nFormer President Donald Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michigan attorney general\u2019s probe into the attempts to overturn the 2020 election in that state, an investigator testified ... (Date published: Apr 25, 2024)\n\nTrump lost two defamation cases to Carroll in 2023 and 2024 in federal court after a jury found him liable for sexually abusing the onetime columnist and subsequently defaming her. Two juries ... (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n\nFederal indictment in 2020 election interference case. Trump is accused of participating in a scheme to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election to now ... (Date published: Sep 13, 2024)\n\nFormer President Donald J. Trump was named as an unindicted co-conspirator on Wednesday in the investigation by the Michigan attorney general\u2019s office into interference in the 2020 election. (Date published: Apr 24, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n- Multiple high-profile YouTubers have already quit in early 2024, including:\n - MatPat (Game Theorists, 18.4M subscribers)\n - Tom Scott (6.37M subscribers)\n- News sources indicate an \"unusually high\" number of content creators leaving in 2024\n- Context spans Jan-Dec 2024, with 11 months remaining\n- Resolution requires:\n - YouTuber must have 5M+ subscribers (at any point)\n - Official announcement to quit\n - Evidence posted in comments\n - Long breaks (>1 year) count as quitting\n - Platform switches count as quitting\n - Bans count as quitting\n- YouTube's monetization and algorithm changes can affect creator decisions\n- Historical context shows previous \"waves\" of creator departures\n\n\n\n1. Most large channels are businesses/teams, not solo creators, making complete shutdowns less likely (7/10)\n2. High subscriber counts usually indicate significant revenue, creating strong incentives to continue (6/10)\n3. The early 2024 \"wave\" of departures might represent most of the likely departures for the year (5/10)\n4. Many creators who \"quit\" often return after breaks, not qualifying as true quits (4/10)\n\n\n\n1. Already confirmed cases in early 2024 show this is actively occurring (9/10)\n2. Multiple exit paths qualify (breaks>1yr, platform switches, bans) making the condition more likely (7/10)\n3. Creator burnout and platform changes create ongoing pressure for exits (6/10)\n4. Large pool of eligible creators (5M+ subscribers) increases chances (6/10)\n\n\n\nThe key interaction is between the demonstrated trend (early 2024 departures) and whether this predicts more departures or suggests the \"wave\" is complete. The breadth of qualifying conditions (platform switches, long breaks, bans) significantly expands the possibility space.\n\nGiven 11 months remain and the large eligible pool, even if the current \"wave\" subsides, normal base rates of creator turnover could trigger resolution. The multiple paths to qualification (voluntary quit, ban, platform switch, extended break) create multiple independent chances for resolution.\n\nNeed to consider that news coverage might overemphasize departures as more newsworthy than continuity, but the concrete examples provide strong evidence this is a real phenomenon.\n\n\n0.85\n\n\nReviewing my initial forecast:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: Even in normal years, some portion of creators exit. The expanded definition (including platform switches, long breaks) suggests the true base rate is non-trivial.\n\n2. Evidence strength: The early 2024 examples aren't mere speculation - they're confirmed cases involving major creators, suggesting real structural forces at work.\n\n3. Time horizon: With 11 months remaining and multiple paths to qualification, the probability should be quite high. Even if the current \"wave\" ends, normal turnover rates among thousands of eligible creators create substantial probability mass.\n\n4. Method of resolution: Requirement for comment evidence slightly reduces probability, but given high-profile nature of eligible creators, documentation is likely when events occur.\n\nThe tentative forecast of 0.85 appears well-calibrated given these factors. The conjunction of \"high profile\" and clear verification requirements prevents going higher, while multiple documented cases and extended time horizon prevent going lower.\n\n\n*0.85*", "probability": 0.85, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/AmmonLam/will-a-high-profile-youtuber-quit-d-d7ad8890029d", "market_probability": 0.7209260649096985, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill a high profile YouTuber quit during 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nResolves Yes if a Youtuber with at least 5 million subscribers made an offical annoucement to quit youtube during 2024\nFor this market to resolve Yes, someone in the comment session have to post evidence of the youtuber quitting before market closes \nResolves No if no such evidence is posted in the comment session\n\nNon-comprehensive list of youtubers with 5 million subscribers \nhttps://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Five_Million_Subscribers \n\nNote: Generally, taking a short break does not count as quitting.\nNote: However, if a YouTuber indicates they will step away for over a year, that would count as quitting.\nNote: YouTubers with 5 million subscribers at any point in time are included for this resolution.\nNote: If a YouTuber is leaving YouTube to move to another platform (e.g., Twitch, Destiny.gg), this counts as quitting.\nNote: If YouTube bans a YouTuber, this counts as quitting in the sense of involuntary quitting.\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Feb 1, 2024--3. Listen. Share. It\u2019s been hard to ignore the recent trend of YouTube creators quitting the platform, even some of the biggest names with massive audiences. It\u2019s a surprising ... (Date published: Jan 31, 2024)\n- YouTubers like Tom Scott, Matt Pat and Hannah Witton have announced they're quitting YouTube or significantly stepping back. Scroll Deep takes a look at why creators are leaving the platform. (Date published: Jan 18, 2024)\n- While internet celebrities retiring from YouTube isn't new, the number of content creators announcing their exit from the platform in 2024 seems unusually high. Though YouTubers like Unnus Annus ... (Date published: Jan 17, 2024)\n- This week, MatPat from the wildly popular YouTube channel The Game Theorists (currently with 18.4 million subscribers) announced in a teary video that he was quitting the internet.Last week Tom Scott, who has 6.37 million subscribers, announced that after 10 years he was going to stop making his educational videos.The same day Joel Haver told his 1.94 million subscribers that he was done ... (Date published: Jan 11, 2024)\n- There was a huge gravy train back when you could just hire bot farms to crank up your view counts. Creators would make stupid videos of them just talking to the camera, they would \"magically\" get 10 million views, and they would get paid. The thing was that every content creator's payouts were being adjusted based on these bogus numbers.\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill a high profile YouTuber quit during 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"YouTube creators quitting platform 2024\"", "search_results": "Feb 1, 2024--3. Listen. Share. It\u2019s been hard to ignore the recent trend of YouTube creators quitting the platform, even some of the biggest names with massive audiences. It\u2019s a surprising ... (Date published: Jan 31, 2024)\n\nYouTubers like Tom Scott, Matt Pat and Hannah Witton have announced they're quitting YouTube or significantly stepping back. Scroll Deep takes a look at why creators are leaving the platform. (Date published: Jan 18, 2024)\n\nWhile internet celebrities retiring from YouTube isn't new, the number of content creators announcing their exit from the platform in 2024 seems unusually high. Though YouTubers like Unnus Annus ... (Date published: Jan 17, 2024)\n\nThis week, MatPat from the wildly popular YouTube channel The Game Theorists (currently with 18.4 million subscribers) announced in a teary video that he was quitting the internet.Last week Tom Scott, who has 6.37 million subscribers, announced that after 10 years he was going to stop making his educational videos.The same day Joel Haver told his 1.94 million subscribers that he was done ... (Date published: Jan 11, 2024)\n\nThere was a huge gravy train back when you could just hire bot farms to crank up your view counts. Creators would make stupid videos of them just talking to the camera, they would \"magically\" get 10 million views, and they would get paid. The thing was that every content creator's payouts were being adjusted based on these bogus numbers."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Destiny is a political commentator and streamer known for controversial takes and debates\n2. He has previously discussed receiving threats due to his political positions\n3. He reportedly planned to visit Israel (per comment from May 2024)\n4. There has been significant conflict in Israel/Middle East during 2024, including multiple high-profile assassination attempts\n5. The market closes December 31, 2024, and today is December 1, 2024\n6. Resolution requires:\n - A \"serious\" attempt on his life\n - Involvement of law enforcement\n - Him discussing it on stream\n - All occurring before end of 2024\n\n\n\n1. Most online threats and claimed assassination attempts turn out to be non-credible (8/10)\n2. With only 30 days left in 2024, the window for both an attempt AND discussion is very narrow (7/10)\n3. Law enforcement involvement requirement makes bar higher than just claiming a threat (6/10)\n4. High-profile streamers frequently receive threats but very rarely face genuine assassination attempts (8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Destiny's controversial positions and willingness to travel to conflict zones increase risk (5/10)\n2. If there was any attempt, he would likely discuss it on stream given his open communication style (7/10)\n3. His planned Israel visit during a period of heightened conflict creates genuine risk (4/10)\n4. He has incentive to dramatize threats for content/attention (3/10)\n\n\n\nLet's break this down into required components:\n1. An actual assassination attempt must occur\n2. Law enforcement must be involved\n3. He must discuss it on stream\n4. All within 30 days\n\nThe conjunction of these requirements significantly reduces probability. Even if there was a 5% chance of a serious attempt in this timeframe, perhaps 80% chance he'd discuss it if it happened, and 90% chance of law enforcement involvement in a serious case, we get: 0.05 * 0.8 * 0.9 = 0.036\n\nThe Israel visit adds risk but may have already occurred earlier in 2024 without incident. The timing constraint is particularly limiting - December is usually a slower month for content creators.\n\n\n0.035\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n- Base rate for actual assassination attempts on streamers/content creators is extremely low\n- Law enforcement requirement helps filter out false claims/drama\n- December timing makes this particularly unlikely as many content creators take breaks\n- The conjunction of requirements (attempt + police + discussion + timing) properly reflected in low probability\n- While 3.5% might seem low, given the specific requirements and timeframe, it may actually be generous\n- News coverage of assassination attempts in 2024 might make us overestimate likelihood due to availability bias\n\nThe short remaining time window is particularly constraining - both an attempt and discussion must fit in 30 days. This suggests my initial estimate may still be too high.\n\n\n*0.02*", "probability": 0.02, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/strutheo/will-destiny-talk-about-an-assassin", "market_probability": 0.16215265574488336, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Destiny talk about an assassination attempt on his life on stream before the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nResolves YES if he describes it as a serious attempt on his life that involves law enforcement. \n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Rohan (2024-05-19): I'm betting on this market because I think he's a drama king, but the concept of this market made me wonder -- would anyone act in real life to make it resolve yes?\\nCould Manifold with real money become a bounty system?\\nDo I just need to calm down?\n- chris (strutheo) (2024-05-22): He is going to Israel soon \n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- On 19 October 2024, a drone strike took place on the private residence of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the town of Caesarea, Israel.The attack was referred to as an assassination attempt by several news outlets and by Netanyahu himself and was suspected to have been launched from Lebanon.The incident did not result in any injuries, and Netanyahu was not at his home during the ...\n- Assassination attempts. A bullet struck Trump as he stood before thousands at a rally. Though injured, he famously refused to leave the stage, rallying the crowd with his signature bravado. (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n- The troops returned fire with a tank, then flew a drone into the heavily damaged building, according to the Israeli military. The video, shared by the military, shows what seem to be Sinwar\u2019s ... (Date published: Oct 18, 2024)\n- It was around 5:30 a.m. Thursday in Washington, DC, that senior US officials first got word \u2014 and photographs \u2014 from their Israeli counterparts: Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar might be dead. (Date published: Oct 17, 2024)\n- The conflict in the Middle East has entered a new phase in the wake of Israel's suspected assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh\u2019s in Tehran and an Israeli strike in Beirut against the top ... (Date published: Jul 31, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Destiny talk about an assassination attempt on his life on stream before the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "destiny israel assassination attempt 2024", "search_results": "On 19 October 2024, a drone strike took place on the private residence of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the town of Caesarea, Israel.The attack was referred to as an assassination attempt by several news outlets and by Netanyahu himself and was suspected to have been launched from Lebanon.The incident did not result in any injuries, and Netanyahu was not at his home during the ...\n\nAssassination attempts. A bullet struck Trump as he stood before thousands at a rally. Though injured, he famously refused to leave the stage, rallying the crowd with his signature bravado. (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n\nThe troops returned fire with a tank, then flew a drone into the heavily damaged building, according to the Israeli military. The video, shared by the military, shows what seem to be Sinwar\u2019s ... (Date published: Oct 18, 2024)\n\nIt was around 5:30 a.m. Thursday in Washington, DC, that senior US officials first got word \u2014 and photographs \u2014 from their Israeli counterparts: Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar might be dead. (Date published: Oct 17, 2024)\n\nThe conflict in the Middle East has entered a new phase in the wake of Israel's suspected assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh\u2019s in Tehran and an Israeli strike in Beirut against the top ... (Date published: Jul 31, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The question resolves in 30 days (Dec 31, 2024)\n2. The issue is specifically about mobile web browser experience when logged out\n3. Multiple users report slow loading times, primarily due to comment loading\n4. There are existing workarounds:\n - Official Substack app\n - ACX Reader (unofficial mirror site)\n5. The improvement must be:\n - Noticeable\n - Consistent\n - Verified over several weeks\n6. Valid solutions could include:\n - Substack improving comment loading\n - Default comment collapsing\n - Other technical improvements\n7. Comments suggest this has been an ongoing issue for months (March-June 2024)\n8. The questioner doesn't read ACX very frequently\n\n\n\n1. Long-standing technical issues often persist if not prioritized (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Substack has known about this for months and hasn't fixed it yet (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Only 30 days remain in 2024, giving little time for:\n - Implementation of changes\n - Testing and verification\n - Confirming consistency\n (Strength: 9/10)\n4. The questioner's infrequent reading makes verification of \"consistency\" harder (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Existence of ACX Reader shows technical solutions are possible (Strength: 6/10)\n2. Pressure from high-profile writers like Scott Alexander could motivate Substack to act (Strength: 5/10)\n3. Comment collapsing is a simple technical change that could be implemented quickly (Strength: 4/10)\n4. The bar for \"less annoying\" is relatively low - doesn't need to be perfect (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key considerations:\n\n1. Time constraint is severe:\n- Only 30 days left\n- Need time for implementation AND verification\n- \"Several weeks\" needed for consistency check\n- Holiday season may slow development\n\n2. Solution complexity:\n- Technical solutions exist (ACX Reader)\n- Simple fixes (comment collapsing) are possible\n- But Substack hasn't implemented despite months of complaints\n\n3. Verification challenges:\n- Infrequent reading makes consistency check harder\n- Holiday period may affect reading patterns\n- Need multiple successful readings to confirm\n\nThe time constraint is particularly damning. Even if Substack implemented a fix today, there might not be enough time to verify consistency given the questioner's reading patterns and holiday season.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n\n1. Base rates:\n- Tech companies often have slow response times to user complaints\n- Platform-wide changes typically take months of testing\n- End-of-year periods often see reduced development activity\n\n2. The verification requirement creates a compound probability:\n- P(fix implemented) * P(fix works) * P(enough readings to verify) * P(consistency confirmed)\n- Each term reduces the overall probability\n\n3. The existing workarounds (app, mirror site) might reduce Substack's urgency to fix the mobile web experience\n\nThe time constraint combined with the compound probability nature of the requirements makes the initial estimate reasonable. The existence of working alternatives actually works against a quick fix, as it reduces pressure on Substack.\n\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/CollectedOverSpread/will-browsing-astral-codex-ten-be-l", "market_probability": 0.7999999999999987, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill browsing Astral Codex Ten be less annoying before the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nMultiple people have reported that Astral Codex Ten posts load slowly, and this has been my experience as well, especially on a mobile device. I often find it difficult to read a post because of how slowly it loads. According to an \"official explanation\" from Scott Alexander posted in the Reddit thread, this is because all comments are loaded when the post is loaded, but commenters contend (rightly, in my opinion) that Substack is at fault for loading comments so inefficiently.\n\nThis question resolves to YES if I notice that reading Astral Codex Ten posts is less annoying than it is now, on a consistent basis, before 00:00 UTC on January 1, 2025. Otherwise, this question resolves to NO.\n\nI will use my personal mobile device, reading as I normally would, to test this. The reduction in annoyance must be noticeable, but not necessary total. I don't read ACX too often, so it may take several weeks to determine that the reduction is consistent. The reduction may be due to Substack improving how it loads comments, Scott Alexander collapsing comments by default, or some other means, but it must apply to the default logged-out view on a mobile Web browser.\n\nI may provide liquidity subsidies but will not otherwise trade in this question.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Adorj\u00e1n M\u00e1rk Kov\u00e1cs (2024-03-12): You might already know this, but it's much smoother when using the official app.\n- Collected Over Spread (2024-05-05): There is an unofficial mirror site called \\nACX Reader\\n that has the tagline \"Because Substack is too damn slow\".\n- Dylan Slagh (2024-06-07): I use the substack ios app which loads instantly \ud83e\udd37\u200d\u2642\ufe0f \n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Prison And Crime: Much More Than You Wanted To Know. Copy link. Facebook (Date published: Nov 25, 2024)\n- P(A|B) = [P(A)*P(B|A)]/P(B), all the rest is commentary. Activity. Posts\n- I appreciate Senator Wiener\u2019s engagement and hope he\u2019s able to take his podcasting campaign to the next level (ie go on Dwarkesh). 19: In my review of Origins of Woke, some people suggested that testing whether score on an employment test correlated with performance on the job might get confounded due to Berkson\u2019s Paradox. The Of Aurochs And Angels blog analyzes the question in more depth. (Date published: May 29, 2024)\n- P(A|B) = [P(A)*P(B|A)]/P(B), all the rest is commentary. Click to read Astral Codex Ten, by Scott Alexander, a Substack publication. Launched 8 days ago.\n- Each year, I post a reader survey. This helps me learn who\u2019s reading this blog. But it also helps me try to replicate a bunch of psych findings, and investigate interesting hypotheses. (Date published: Mar 26, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill browsing Astral Codex Ten be less annoying before the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"astral codex ten substack performance optimization 2024\"", "search_results": "Prison And Crime: Much More Than You Wanted To Know. Copy link. Facebook (Date published: Nov 25, 2024)\n\nP(A|B) = [P(A)*P(B|A)]/P(B), all the rest is commentary. Activity. Posts\n\nI appreciate Senator Wiener\u2019s engagement and hope he\u2019s able to take his podcasting campaign to the next level (ie go on Dwarkesh). 19: In my review of Origins of Woke, some people suggested that testing whether score on an employment test correlated with performance on the job might get confounded due to Berkson\u2019s Paradox. The Of Aurochs And Angels blog analyzes the question in more depth. (Date published: May 29, 2024)\n\nP(A|B) = [P(A)*P(B|A)]/P(B), all the rest is commentary. Click to read Astral Codex Ten, by Scott Alexander, a Substack publication. Launched 8 days ago.\n\nEach year, I post a reader survey. This helps me learn who\u2019s reading this blog. But it also helps me try to replicate a bunch of psych findings, and investigate interesting hypotheses. (Date published: Mar 26, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Russian state TV has aired segments of Tucker Carlson's show, but these were not original content created for Russian viewers\n2. Carlson explicitly denied involvement, stating he \"never even heard of this channel\"\n3. Market resolution criteria specify:\n - YES if Tucker consents (even retroactively) before end of 2024\n - NO if he continues denying involvement through 2024\n - Partial resolution possible if evidence suggests lying about lack of consent\n4. Tucker previously interviewed Putin in Russia in 2024\n5. The incident occurred in May 2024, leaving ~7 months for potential developments\n6. Multiple fact-checking organizations have confirmed these were unauthorized airings\n\n\n\n1. Carlson has explicitly and firmly denied involvement (8/10)\n2. Fact-checking organizations have verified these were unauthorized uses of content (7/10)\n3. Starting a Russian show could severely damage Carlson's credibility with his core US audience (6/10)\n4. With only 7 months left in 2024, time window for reversal is limited (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Carlson has shown willingness to engage with Russian media through Putin interview (4/10)\n2. His denial could be strategic, with plans to acknowledge involvement later (3/10)\n3. Russian media market could offer significant financial opportunities (2/10)\n\n\n\nThe key mechanism here is Carlson's incentive structure. While he has demonstrated some willingness to engage with Russian media, starting an actual show would be a much more significant step with potentially severe reputational costs in the US. The fact that he's already explicitly denied involvement raises the stakes - reversing this position would be particularly damaging.\n\nThe market resolution criteria are important here - we need actual consent, not just continued unauthorized use. Given Carlson's current position and the reputational dynamics, there would need to be compelling incentives to overcome these barriers.\n\nThe remaining time window is also relevant - while 7 months is enough time for developments, it reduces the probability compared to if this was January 2024.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nLooking at base rates, very few prominent Western media figures have started shows on Russian state TV, even during periods of higher Russian-Western cooperation. The combination of explicit denial and fact-checker verification of unauthorized use provides strong evidence against consent.\n\nThe resolution criteria actually make this somewhat easier to forecast - we need clear consent rather than trying to interpret ambiguous situations. This reduces uncertainty around edge cases.\n\nKey factors:\n- Strong explicit denial + fact-checker verification\n- High reputational costs vs limited potential benefits\n- Need for clear consent under resolution criteria\n- Limited remaining time window\n- Low base rate for similar events\n\nIf anything, my initial forecast may be too high given the combination of these factors.\n\n\n*0.08*", "probability": 0.08, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Bayesian/will-tucker-carlson-start-a-russian", "market_probability": 0.19088486145469274, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Tucker Carlson start a Russian TV show in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-says-useful-idiot-tucker-carlson-could-end-up-with-russian-tv-show\n\nSince some tucker carlson X show clips have been posted on a russian tv channel, and Tucker and his team currently deny involvement, I've clarified the resolution criteria for this unfortunate edge case:\n1) If it turns out Tucker actually consented to the show, or if he retroactively consents to it, before the end of 2024, the market resolves YES. Same for any other russian tucker shows he consents to, by the end of the year.\n2) If Tucker continues to deny involvement or consentment to any and all russian tv shows until the end of the year, and there is no indication that he is lying (like a tv show continuing to display his shows in russian without legal liability), the market resolves NO.\n3) If it seems in my or moderators' opinions clear that he is probably lying about a lack of consent/involvement, it may resolve to some probability relative to our subjective belief in his lies. For example, if it seems likely that he actually consents without publicly doing so, the market may resolve to 50%; If there is no indication of it, even if it is plausible, it will still resolve NO.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- stefanie (2024-05-21): a couple of different reports here:\\nhttps://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-launches-show-russian-state-tv-russia-24-1903045\\nhttps://kyivindependent.com/tucker-carlson-launches-new-show-on-russian-tv/\\nhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/kremlin-tv-drops-new-tucker-carlson-show\\nbut regardless, I think this should resolve yes?\n- Bayesian (2024-05-21): NO. WAY.\n- Bayesian (2024-05-21): Hillary is a genius\n- Bayesian (2024-05-21): \\nhttps://x.com/NeilPatelTDC/status/1792957581025223130\\n \\nTwitter is saying it hasn't been confirmed yet. waiting on some more reliable sources or something ig, unless you have reason to think those are super reliable. but this is wild.\n- stefanie (2024-05-21): yeah I saw that too but I bought it up anyway - I think even if it's his show posted and dubbed in Russia and he didn't initiate the airing but consents, it would resolve, right? is this contingent upon an entirely different show?\n- Bayesian (2024-05-21): Yeah, if he emerges with a contract from a russian outlet to display his stuff on tv, that's what Oracle Hillary predicted, and would resolve this market YES. I think consenting to airing his show dubbed in russian would count as that.\n- ClubmasterTransparent (2024-05-22): He\u2019s saying he didn\u2019t consent, but Mandy Rice-Davies Applies.\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): \\n> but Mandy Rice-Davies Applies\\nNo idea what that mean\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): ok well then we'd be at an empasse. Has it been confirmed that the tv show aired/is gonna air at least\n- stefanie (2024-05-22): ack\n- ClubmasterTransparent (2024-05-22): Several reports. He discussed Lyme disease apparently \\nhttps://www.kyivpost.com/post/33060\\nIt\u2019s not possible to prove the negative that he didn\u2019t consent. It\u2019s not like sending Russian TV a cease-and-desist letter would be a credible threat. I don\u2019t imagine The Hague would step in here.\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): Closing the market for now, to figure out what to do here. Do yall have opinions and accompanying justifications.. If the outcome is \"permanently unknowable\" that's unfortunate\n- stefanie (2024-05-22): give it a little time? I wouldn't be surprised if other things come out where he gives an indication he supports it, particularly if the show gets pretty popular over there. \n- ClubmasterTransparent (2024-05-22): I think it should resolve yes, it aired, too bad for him if he didn\u2019t get paid, which we can\u2019t determine anyway. Russia TV doesn\u2019t need to respect copyrights. That\u2019s all I\u2019ve got.\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): I think if we knew for sure he didn't consent it would obviously not count? That would not be him starting a tv show, it would be people stealing his show. seems like the difficulty is in dealing with the fact that we don't know for sure either way\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): good idea\n- stefanie (2024-05-22): yeah I think the question \"will \\nhe start\\n a TV show\" implies that he has some say in it. it's an edge case that it's not the establishment of a brand new show but personally, were it my market, I would resolve it yes if it came to a point that he was in some way consenting to it being shown there (I don't think it's necessary for him to be paid for it, personally, as long as he okays it). unsure whether he'll do or say something that implies consent, but it does make sense that any initial response was \"what? what do you mean?\" particularly since everyone was nudging him about his little tourism videos while he was over there lol\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): I agree, if he gives his consent on it it would resolve YES. To the news, atm, he's saying\\n> Carlson, in a separate text message to Mediate, \\nblasted\\n the initial Newsweek report, writing \u201cthis is completely absurd. Reporters are so dishonest and stupid. I\u2019ve never even heard of this channel.\u201d\\nwhich, I get he might be lying ig.. if it's true though it would resolve NO I think\n- stefanie (2024-05-22): well, if at the time he'd never heard of it but once he caught wind of it, he/his people made contact with the network, spoke with them about it, and then said \"sure, that's fine, keep going\" that would maybe be a yes? it's funny that such a small and seemingly simple question/market has gotten complicated somehow lol\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): Yeah, that would be a YES ig. They've explicitly said so far that they don't give it permission. If they go back on that, then yeah that would be weird but resolve the market YES. I would bet a lot on that not happening though\n- stefanie (2024-05-22): ooh a secondary market lol I could make that one \ud83d\ude02\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): My guess is that particular news network stops displaying tucker stuff whatsoever. also I just remembered, even if this didn't count, the market's gotta stay open til the end of the year just in case. so yeah hmm i could reopen it it seems like i've clarified enough? essentially:\\n1. if he confirms his consent, retroactive or otherwise, market resolves YES\\n2. if he continues denying it, and the tv show stops showing his stuff, and he doesn't start some other russian tv show that is not that one, by eoy, resolves NO\\n3. if he stops commenting on it, and the tv show continues airing his stuff, I will be increasingly suspicious that he is obviously lying, in which case I am again undecided on YES or NO, but I hope it doesn't come to that. I could precommit that a suspicious but uncertain outcome would resolve to 50%, idk.\\n4. I can create another market predicting this shit but i would probably close it before news is likely to come bc saving subsidy\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): oh yeah absolutely go ahead! \n- stefanie (2024-05-22): yeah all of that totally makes sense. tbh I have a regretful Who Will Be On Tucker's Show market so I get notifications when he posts episodes - I'm not going to turn any more attention to him than I already do, but I'll likely notice if there's suddenly some topic about the show in Russia for some reason, and I'll drop a note here. but your clarifications make sense! maybe quote-text them in the market description? (up to you ofc)\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): yeah, added to the description! and oh no \ud83d\ude2d cursed by the tucker notifs\n- stefanie (2024-05-22): haha it was a combination of being fairly new to Manifold and sitting solo in an airport on Christmas night waiting for a red eye and thinking it would be an easy and interesting thing to speculate on for 2024 - but he gets some really obscure people on there talking about very niche things lmao \\nbackfired\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): tbh it's fair game to close or partial resolve markets that are too time consuming, or maybe ownership can be passed soon idk, I don't think anyone would fault you for it, or ig the ones that would are wrong to do that\n- stefanie (2024-05-22): nah it doesn't take much time - I only go check if there's someone whose name I recognise that pops up in my notifs about his show, but it's not terribly active as a market so all good for now (hope I don't jynx myself)\n- Bayesian (2024-05-22): Reopened the market, and the clarifications in the description are now in effect.\n- ClubmasterTransparent (2024-05-22): Opinions about Tucker? Here you go!\n- stefanie (2024-05-25): No, Tucker Carlson didn't launch a new show on Russian TV. Clips used without OK | Fact check\\nnot looking good for us Yes holders at the mo. I wonder if there are any legal implications for any reason if he admit he supports or allows them to air the show? I still get the feeling that \"this is done without legal permission\" is lip service from his team, but I'm also not sure whether anything would be worse or challenging for him if he admitted he was good with it... probably more risk to public opinion than anything if he did. though when he was on Lex's podcast after the Putin interview aired, he wasn't exactly singing any praises.\\nthinking out loud I guess - but I just spotted this article\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Segments of Tucker Carlson\u2019s show have aired on Russian state television, but the U.S. conservative talk show host did not launch a new show on Russian state TV, as claimed in social media posts. (Date published: May 27, 2024)\n- The claim: Tucker Carlson is launching a new show on Russian state television. A May 21 Instagram post (direct link, archive link) includes a photo of former Fox News host and conservative pundit ... (Date published: May 24, 2024)\n- On May 21, 2024, Newsweek was one of the first English-language outlets to write an article about Carlson's show on Russian TV. Though the initially published version of the article did say that Carlson's dubbed videos were \"not original content for Russian viewers,\" the article stated that it was a joint project. (Date published: May 30, 2024)\n- Tucker Carlson Show Aired By Russian State TV. Published May 21, 2024 at 10:00 AM EDT Updated May 30, 2024 at 4:13 PM EDT. By Brendan Cole . Senior News Reporter. FOLLOW. Share. (Date published: May 21, 2024)\n- Carlson told the Financial Times Moscow bureau chief Max Seddon that he did not agree to host a show on Russian TV when asked about an advertisement for the show run by one station, and he called ... (Date published: May 21, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Tucker Carlson start a Russian TV show in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Tucker Carlson Russian TV show consent 2024\"", "search_results": "Segments of Tucker Carlson\u2019s show have aired on Russian state television, but the U.S. conservative talk show host did not launch a new show on Russian state TV, as claimed in social media posts. (Date published: May 27, 2024)\n\nThe claim: Tucker Carlson is launching a new show on Russian state television. A May 21 Instagram post (direct link, archive link) includes a photo of former Fox News host and conservative pundit ... (Date published: May 24, 2024)\n\nOn May 21, 2024, Newsweek was one of the first English-language outlets to write an article about Carlson's show on Russian TV. Though the initially published version of the article did say that Carlson's dubbed videos were \"not original content for Russian viewers,\" the article stated that it was a joint project. (Date published: May 30, 2024)\n\nTucker Carlson Show Aired By Russian State TV. Published May 21, 2024 at 10:00 AM EDT Updated May 30, 2024 at 4:13 PM EDT. By Brendan Cole . Senior News Reporter. FOLLOW. Share. (Date published: May 21, 2024)\n\nCarlson told the Financial Times Moscow bureau chief Max Seddon that he did not agree to host a show on Russian TV when asked about an advertisement for the show run by one station, and he called ... (Date published: May 21, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. There is only 1 month left in 2024 when this question is being asked\n2. Destiny and LilyPichu are both content creators/streamers\n3. The success criteria require:\n - Must be streamed or posted to YouTube\n - Must be in voice chat/able to hear each other\n - Must play for at least 10 minutes\n - Must occur before Dec 31, 2024\n4. LilyPichu appears to still be active in content creation as of late 2024\n5. Gaming collabs are common among streamers/content creators\n\n\n\n1. Very limited time window remaining in 2024 (only December) reduces opportunities (8/10)\n2. No evidence in search results of recent interactions or planned collaborations between these specific creators (6/10)\n3. Holiday season might make scheduling more difficult as creators often take breaks or have other commitments (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Both are active content creators who regularly play games (6/10)\n2. Gaming collaborations are a standard practice in the content creator space (5/10)\n3. The requirements are relatively easy to meet (just 10 minutes of gameplay with voice chat) (4/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is the extremely short time window remaining. With only one month left in 2024, this severely limits the opportunity for this collaboration to occur. Even if they were somewhat likely to collaborate in general, having only December 2024 creates a significant constraint.\n\nThe requirement of just 10 minutes of gameplay makes this more achievable than if it required a longer session, but the time constraint is still the dominant factor.\n\nWe should also consider that December often involves holiday breaks and reduced content creation schedules, further reducing the available time window.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nWhen reviewing this forecast, I need to consider:\n\n1. Base rates: How often do random pairs of content creators collaborate? Probably not very frequently unless they're already in the same social circles or have a history of collaboration.\n\n2. Time compression: The one-month window is extremely restrictive. Even if there was a 50% chance of this happening in a full year, the probability for a single month would be much lower.\n\n3. The requirements, while not stringent, still require intentional coordination between the two creators, which needs advance planning.\n\n4. My initial forecast of 0.15 (about 1:6 odds) might actually be too optimistic given the very short timeframe and lack of evidence of any planned collaboration.\n\nThe combination of these factors, especially the severe time constraint and the need for specific coordination, suggests I should revise my probability downward.\n\n\n*0.08*", "probability": 0.08, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Tumbles/will-destiny-play-a-videogame-with-b2fe420ca2ee", "market_probability": 0.09874320880969147, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Destiny play a videogame with LilyPichu during 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nMust be streamed or posted to Youtube to count.\n\nThey must be in voice chat or otherwise be able to hear each other speak for it to count.\n\nGame must be played for at least ten minutes to count.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- In this article, you\u2019ll find everything that Bungie revealed during today\u2019s developer livestream for Destiny 2 Episode Revenant Act 2. We\u2019re now just days away from the launch of Destiny 2 Episode Revenant Act 2, which kicks off on Tuesday, November 19, 2024.This new Act continues the unfolding story of Fikrul, the Fanatic, with all three weeks of narrative content dropping on launch day ... (Date published: Nov 12, 2024)\n- From breakthrough stars like LilyPichu to online megastars like Kai Cenat, it was a big year for internet celebs, but who were the best streamers of 2024? ... 2024 has been a massive year for ...\n- Here are some potential opportunities for collaboration between Lilypichu and other streamers: Co-streaming: Lilypichu could co-stream with other popular streamers, such as Pokimane, Disguised Toast, or Sykkuno. This would allow her to reach a wider audience and introduce her content to new viewers. (Date published: Nov 10, 2024)\n- Please subscribe to:Destiny - https://www.youtube.com/user/destinyLilyPichu - https://www.youtube.com/c/LilyPichucomfi beats - https://www.youtube.com/c/comf...\n- Here comes a new challenger! Launching alongside Act II of Destiny 2: Revenant on November 19, prepare to experience a Shoryuken-style collaboration with an array of new cosmetics inspired by Street Fighter\u2122 6 available in the Eververse Store. Channel the iconic fighting styles of Chun-Li and Ryu with three new Finishers \u2013 Hadoken, Lightning Kick, and Spinning Kick. (Date published: Nov 18, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Destiny play a videogame with LilyPichu during 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Destiny LilyPichu gaming stream 2024 collaboration", "search_results": "In this article, you\u2019ll find everything that Bungie revealed during today\u2019s developer livestream for Destiny 2 Episode Revenant Act 2. We\u2019re now just days away from the launch of Destiny 2 Episode Revenant Act 2, which kicks off on Tuesday, November 19, 2024.This new Act continues the unfolding story of Fikrul, the Fanatic, with all three weeks of narrative content dropping on launch day ... (Date published: Nov 12, 2024)\n\nFrom breakthrough stars like LilyPichu to online megastars like Kai Cenat, it was a big year for internet celebs, but who were the best streamers of 2024? ... 2024 has been a massive year for ...\n\nHere are some potential opportunities for collaboration between Lilypichu and other streamers: Co-streaming: Lilypichu could co-stream with other popular streamers, such as Pokimane, Disguised Toast, or Sykkuno. This would allow her to reach a wider audience and introduce her content to new viewers. (Date published: Nov 10, 2024)\n\nPlease subscribe to:Destiny - https://www.youtube.com/user/destinyLilyPichu - https://www.youtube.com/c/LilyPichucomfi beats - https://www.youtube.com/c/comf...\n\nHere comes a new challenger! Launching alongside Act II of Destiny 2: Revenant on November 19, prepare to experience a Shoryuken-style collaboration with an array of new cosmetics inspired by Street Fighter\u2122 6 available in the Eververse Store. Channel the iconic fighting styles of Chun-Li and Ryu with three new Finishers \u2013 Hadoken, Lightning Kick, and Spinning Kick. (Date published: Nov 18, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me forecast this step by step.\n\n\n1. AUTOMATIC1111's Stable Diffusion webUI has 125k stars (image generation)\n2. Oobabooga's text generation webUI has 34k stars (text generation)\n3. Gitmylo's audio webUI has 847 stars (as of market creation)\n4. There were major advances in music AI during 2023, including MusicLM and melody-conditioned generation\n5. MusicGen was released, allowing controllable music generation\n6. The market closes in 30 days (Dec 31, 2024)\n7. The threshold needed is 5000 stars\n8. GitHub has over 100M users and 420M projects\n9. Multiple music generation models exist (MusicGen, Bark, AudioGen, etc.)\n10. Local AI deployment through web UIs is a proven popular approach (evidenced by SD and text generation UIs)\n\n\n\n1. The market closes very soon (30 days), giving little time for a new UI to gain traction (Strength: 9/10)\n2. Music generation is more niche than image or text generation, limiting potential user base (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Existing music UI has only 847 stars, suggesting limited current interest (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Music generation may be more computationally intensive, making local deployment less practical (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\n1. The success of image/text UIs shows strong demand for local AI deployment (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Multiple mature music generation models exist, ready to be integrated (Strength: 7/10)\n3. The 5000 star threshold is much lower than existing popular AI UIs (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Recent advances in music AI could drive increased interest (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration is the extremely short timeframe (30 days) versus the normal growth patterns of GitHub repositories. While 5000 stars is a modest threshold compared to successful AI UIs, repositories typically accumulate stars gradually unless there's viral attention.\n\nFor a repository to gain ~4150 additional stars (from current best of ~850) in 30 days, it would need to either:\n1. Be an exceptional new release that goes viral (~10% chance)\n2. Have significant marketing/community backing (~5% chance)\n3. Be from an established developer/organization (~5% chance)\n\nThese paths aren't mutually exclusive but given the short timeframe, timing is crucial. The market also resolves if an existing UI has already crossed 5000 stars, though search results don't suggest this.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing my initial forecast:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: Only a tiny fraction of GitHub repositories ever reach 5000 stars\n2. Time pressure: 30 days is extremely limiting\n3. Analogous cases: Both successful UI examples (AUTOMATIC1111 and oobabooga) took months to reach their current star counts\n4. Market conditions: While music AI has advanced significantly, the local deployment ecosystem is still nascent compared to image/text\n\nThe 0.15 probability seems reasonable given these factors. It's low enough to reflect the significant hurdles (especially time constraint) while leaving room for the possibility of an existing UI being discovered or a viral release. A probability closer to 0.05 would underweight the possibility of unknown existing solutions, while anything above 0.25 would seem overconfident given the time constraint.\n\n\n*0.15*", "probability": 0.15, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Tulip/will-there-be-an-aimusicgeneration", "market_probability": 0.24961592466778468, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill there be an AI-music-generation web UI with at least 5000 stars on GitHub by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nPeople who want to run AI-art-generation on their local machine can, among other ways, do so using AUTOMATIC1111's Stable Diffusion webUI, which at the time of this market's creation has 125k stars on GitHub.\n\nPeople who want to run AI-text-generation on their local machine, similarly, can use oobabooga's text generation webUI, which at the time of this market's creation has 34k stars on GitHub.\n\nHowever, as of this market's creation, I'm unaware of any similarly-popular UI for AI music-generation. The most popular one I managed to find, from a bit of research before making this market, was gitmylo's audio webUI, which as of this market's creation has 847 stars on GitHub.\n\nMarket will resolve Yes if I become aware of a web UI for local AI-music-generation, analogous to the linked ones, having at least 5000 stars on GitHub before the end of 2024. Otherwise, it will resolve No. (I don't monitor the relevant tech-sphere hugely actively / frequently, but people are free to bring news of such tools to me during 2024, and I'll also do a scan of my own in early 2025 before resolving this market if it hasn't already resolved by then.)\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Simple and Controllable Music Generation: A single Language Model (LM) called MusicGen that operates over compressed discrete music representation, allowing better control over the generated output.Music samples, code, and models are available at the provided link. AI-Based Affective Music Generation Systems: A Review of Methods: A comprehensive review of AI-AMG systems, discussing their ...\n- Fund open source developers The ReadME Project. GitHub community articles Repositories. Topics ... Video Background Music Generation with Controllable Music Transformer. music-generation ai-music Updated Aug 3, 2024; ... To associate your repository with the ai-music topic, visit ...\n- GitHub is where people build software. More than 100 million people use GitHub to discover, fork, and contribute to over 420 million projects. ... TTS Generation Web UI (Bark, MusicGen + AudioGen, Tortoise, RVC, Vocos, Demucs, SeamlessM4T, MAGNet, StyleTTS2, MMS, Stable Audio, Mars5, F5-TTS, ParlerTTS) ... music open-source ai image-generation ...\n- By Alex \u2022 Updated Jul 25, 2024. AI Music Generators create original songs and melodies in seconds, helping anyone produce professional-sounding tracks without musical skills. I've spent hours testing 20 different options, and this article highlights the top 8 you should try in 2024. ... I use a scale of 1-5 stars for each category. A 5 means ...\n- Recap: How 2023 Changed Music AI. From my perspective, 2023 was the most exciting year for Music AI in the history of the field. Here are only some of the breakthroughs we got to experience in this amazing year: Text-to-Music generation has crossed Uncanny Valley (e.g. MusicLM) Open-Source melody-conditioned music generation released (e.g ... (Date published: Dec 30, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill there be an AI-music-generation web UI with at least 5000 stars on GitHub by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"open source AI music generation web UI github stars 2024\"", "search_results": "Simple and Controllable Music Generation: A single Language Model (LM) called MusicGen that operates over compressed discrete music representation, allowing better control over the generated output.Music samples, code, and models are available at the provided link. AI-Based Affective Music Generation Systems: A Review of Methods: A comprehensive review of AI-AMG systems, discussing their ...\n\nFund open source developers The ReadME Project. GitHub community articles Repositories. Topics ... Video Background Music Generation with Controllable Music Transformer. music-generation ai-music Updated Aug 3, 2024; ... To associate your repository with the ai-music topic, visit ...\n\nGitHub is where people build software. More than 100 million people use GitHub to discover, fork, and contribute to over 420 million projects. ... TTS Generation Web UI (Bark, MusicGen + AudioGen, Tortoise, RVC, Vocos, Demucs, SeamlessM4T, MAGNet, StyleTTS2, MMS, Stable Audio, Mars5, F5-TTS, ParlerTTS) ... music open-source ai image-generation ...\n\nBy Alex \u2022 Updated Jul 25, 2024. AI Music Generators create original songs and melodies in seconds, helping anyone produce professional-sounding tracks without musical skills. I've spent hours testing 20 different options, and this article highlights the top 8 you should try in 2024. ... I use a scale of 1-5 stars for each category. A 5 means ...\n\nRecap: How 2023 Changed Music AI. From my perspective, 2023 was the most exciting year for Music AI in the history of the field. Here are only some of the breakthroughs we got to experience in this amazing year: Text-to-Music generation has crossed Uncanny Valley (e.g. MusicLM) Open-Source melody-conditioned music generation released (e.g ... (Date published: Dec 30, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. NASA is targeting September 2026 for Artemis III mission, which aims to land humans on the Moon's South Pole\n2. NASA's own analysis estimates ~33% chance the lander will be delayed by at least a year\n3. The mission will use SpaceX's Starship as the lunar lander\n4. Landing sites near the Moon's South Pole have been identified and updated\n5. Recent moonwalk simulations were conducted to prepare for the mission\n6. This would be the first crewed landing on the Moon in over 50 years\n7. The market question specifically refers to landing, not just orbital flight\n8. Mission duration is planned for ~30 days\n9. The question asks about \"not taking any human to the moon\" - so success of just one mission negates this\n\n\n\n1. NASA's own analysis showing 33% chance of year+ delay is significant (8/10)\n2. Complex missions like this often face technical challenges and delays, especially with new systems like Starship (7/10)\n3. SpaceX's Starship, crucial for the landing, is still in development and testing phase (6/10)\n4. Historical precedent shows space programs often face delays beyond initial timeline estimates (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. NASA is actively preparing with specific timelines and concrete steps (simulations, landing site selection) (6/10)\n2. Multiple Artemis missions are planned, giving multiple opportunities in 2026 (4/10)\n3. Strong political and institutional commitment to meeting the timeline (5/10)\n4. SpaceX has demonstrated ability to meet aggressive timelines when properly motivated (5/10)\n\n\n\nKey interactions to consider:\n- The 33% chance of year+ delay from NASA's own analysis is particularly noteworthy as internal assessments tend to be more optimistic\n- Multiple missions provide some redundancy, but all face similar technical challenges\n- The dependency on Starship development is critical path\n- NASA's active preparation suggests some confidence in timeline\n- Need to consider conjunction of multiple requirements: successful launch, transit, and landing\n\nThe factors suggesting delay appear stronger than those supporting on-time completion. The technical challenges and NASA's own analysis provide concrete evidence for potential delays, while supporting factors are more about preparation and commitment rather than technical readiness.\n\n\n0.65\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n- Base rate for major space mission delays is high\n- First-time missions with new technology face particularly high delay rates\n- NASA's public estimates tend to be optimistic historically\n- The 33% chance of year+ delay is specifically for the lander component; other elements could also cause delays\n- The market specifically requires landing, not just orbital flight, adding complexity\n\nThe conjunction of multiple complex elements (launch, transit, landing with new technology) suggests my initial probability might be too low. Each element needs to work, and delays in any component affect the timeline.\n\nThe historical base rate for major space mission delays, combined with the complexity of this specific mission and dependency on new technology, suggests a higher probability of delay.\n\n\n*0.75*", "probability": 0.75, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/XanLor/the-artemis-mission-will-not-take-a", "market_probability": 0.94, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nThe Artemis mission will not take any human being to the moon in 2026\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- DP (2024-03-11): \"to the moon\" meaning landing on the moon (Artemis 3) or flying around the moon (Artemis 2)?\n- Xan Lor (2024-03-12): landing\n- Benjamin Idelevich (2024-04-07): Why wouldn't they? Do you mean like a delay of over four months? This seems massively overvalued to me tbh.\n- Benjamin Idelevich (2024-04-07): https://manifold.markets/BenjaminIdelevich/which-agencycompany-will-send-peopl?r=QmVuamFtaW5JZGVsZXZpY2g\n- Chris Billington (2024-04-10): do they have to land on the moon for a NO resolution, or is orbit sufficient?\n- Xan Lor (2024-04-10): landing\n- Chris Billington (2024-04-10): thanks for the clarification. Do you want to reopen this market for trading, and set the close date to end of 2026?\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- No earlier than Sept. 2026. Mission Duration ~30 Days. Mission Overview. ... NASA Provides Update on Artemis III Moon Landing Regions. News Release. 3 Min Read. I Am Artemis: Sarah Ryan. Image Article. The Spaceport. ... Each region contains multiple potential landing sites for Artemis III, which will be the first of the Artemis missions to ... (Date published: Jan 9, 2024)\n- NASA astronauts Kate Rubins and Andre Douglas recently performed four moonwalk simulations to help NASA prepare for its Artemis III mission. Due to launch in September 2026, Artemis III will land two, yet-to-be-selected, astronauts at the Moon\u2019s South Pole for\u2026 (Date published: Mar 20, 2024)\n- This image shows nine candidate landing regions for NASA\u2019s Artemis III mission, with each region containing multiple potential sites for the first crewed landing on the Moon in more than 50 years. The background image of the lunar South Pole terrain within the nine regions is a mosaic of LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) WAC (Wide Angle ... (Date published: Oct 28, 2024)\n- As NASA pushes ahead with a crewed lunar landing on the Artemis 3 mission in September 2026, the agency\u2019s own analysis estimates a nearly one-in-three chance the lander will be at least a year ... (Date published: Jul 3, 2024)\n- NASA has updated a list of candidate landing sites near the south pole of the moon for the Artemis 3 mission, taking into account surface conditions and capabilities of SpaceX\u2019s Starship lander. (Date published: Oct 31, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nThe Artemis mission will not take any human being to the moon in 2026\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Artemis 3 moon landing schedule 2026 NASA update", "search_results": "No earlier than Sept. 2026. Mission Duration ~30 Days. Mission Overview. ... NASA Provides Update on Artemis III Moon Landing Regions. News Release. 3 Min Read. I Am Artemis: Sarah Ryan. Image Article. The Spaceport. ... Each region contains multiple potential landing sites for Artemis III, which will be the first of the Artemis missions to ... (Date published: Jan 9, 2024)\n\nNASA astronauts Kate Rubins and Andre Douglas recently performed four moonwalk simulations to help NASA prepare for its Artemis III mission. Due to launch in September 2026, Artemis III will land two, yet-to-be-selected, astronauts at the Moon\u2019s South Pole for\u2026 (Date published: Mar 20, 2024)\n\nThis image shows nine candidate landing regions for NASA\u2019s Artemis III mission, with each region containing multiple potential sites for the first crewed landing on the Moon in more than 50 years. The background image of the lunar South Pole terrain within the nine regions is a mosaic of LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) WAC (Wide Angle ... (Date published: Oct 28, 2024)\n\nAs NASA pushes ahead with a crewed lunar landing on the Artemis 3 mission in September 2026, the agency\u2019s own analysis estimates a nearly one-in-three chance the lander will be at least a year ... (Date published: Jul 3, 2024)\n\nNASA has updated a list of candidate landing sites near the south pole of the moon for the Artemis 3 mission, taking into account surface conditions and capabilities of SpaceX\u2019s Starship lander. (Date published: Oct 31, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. China has made diplomatic efforts towards mediating the Israel-Palestine conflict, including the 2024 Beijing Declaration\n2. China maintains a policy supporting a two-state solution based on 1967 borders\n3. China's role is viewed with skepticism by both Israel and the United States\n4. As of late 2024, China's involvement has been mainly rhetorical, without offering clear resolution paths\n5. China has positioned itself as supporting oppressed nations while trying to expand global influence\n6. The conflict has intensified significantly in late 2023/2024\n7. Resolution requires agreement from both Israeli government and Palestinian Authority\n8. The timeline is very short - only one month remains until market close\n9. A \"peace deal\" requires at minimum an upheld ceasefire by both sides\n10. China has strategic interests in countering US influence in the Middle East\n\n\n\n1. Extremely short timeline (1 month) makes any meaningful diplomatic breakthrough highly unlikely (9/10)\n2. Israel-US alliance and skepticism of China's role severely limits China's influence with Israel (8/10)\n3. Current intensity of conflict makes immediate peace extremely difficult (7/10)\n4. China's involvement has been mostly rhetorical rather than substantive mediation (7/10)\n5. Two-state solution based on 1967 borders is currently unacceptable to Israel (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. China has demonstrated increasing diplomatic engagement in the region (5/10)\n2. China's position as a major power gives it some diplomatic leverage (4/10)\n3. Both sides might be exhausted enough to accept external mediation (3/10)\n4. China's perceived neutrality compared to US could be advantageous (3/10)\n\n\n\nThe strongest factor here is the extremely short timeline - with only one month remaining until market close, achieving a peace deal that satisfies the resolution criteria would require an unprecedented diplomatic breakthrough. The requirements are stringent: both Israeli government and Palestinian Authority must affirm China's claim of brokering a peace deal, and a ceasefire must be both agreed to and upheld.\n\nThe current intensity of the conflict, combined with China's limited influence with Israel (particularly given US-Israel ties), makes this extremely unlikely in such a short timeframe. While China has shown increasing diplomatic engagement, their efforts so far have been mainly rhetorical rather than producing concrete results.\n\nEven if China were to broker initial talks, the probability of reaching agreement, having it affirmed by both sides, and maintaining a ceasefire all within one month is vanishingly small given the historical context and current situation.\n\n\n0.02\n\n\nReviewing this probability through various lenses:\n\nBase rates: No external power has successfully brokered a lasting peace deal between Israel and Palestine in decades of attempts. China has no track record of successful major conflict resolution at this scale.\n\nConjunctive conditions: This requires multiple successive unlikely events (China successfully mediating, both sides agreeing, ceasefire being implemented and upheld) all within one month. Each additional requirement multiplies the improbability.\n\nTime pressure: One month is an extremely short window for international diplomacy, especially for complex conflicts. Even if progress were being made, the probability of completing all requirements by the deadline is minimal.\n\nAlternative scenarios: Even in an optimistic case where both sides were secretly in advanced talks with Chinese mediation (no evidence suggests this), the probability of finalizing and implementing an agreement in one month would still be very low.\n\nComparing to my tentative 2% probability: Given the multiple conjunctive conditions and extremely short timeline, even this low probability might be generous. However, maintaining some small probability accounts for unknown diplomatic developments and the possibility (however remote) of a surprise breakthrough.\n\n\n*0.01*", "probability": 0.01, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/JoshuaWilkes/will-china-broker-a-peace-deal-betw", "market_probability": 0.03487050643188211, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill China broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine by 2025?\n \n**Description:**\nResolution will be on a claim made by the PRC that they have done so, and that claim being affirmed by the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority.\n\nExactly what the 'peace deal' would look like is necessarily wooly, but at a minimum a ceasefire must be agreed to and upheld by both sides.\n\nI will not bet on this market.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2025-01-01\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Ernie (2023-10-12): I have very little confidence that the PRC efforts in this way will work. \n- Josh Wilkes (2023-10-12): gotta get that sweet sweet no then :p\n- Sss (2023-10-26): PRC's belief has always been two state policy, meaning that Israel should retreat to the borderline in 1967 and recognize palestine as an individual country. I doubt that will happen unless Israel completely lose the current war. \n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- China\u2019s mediation and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict After qualitatively examining the two case studies of Chinese mediation, it is possible to identify several key aspects or interests that led China to enter as a central mediator so as to construct a model of Chinese mediation within the framework of NR theory, with a view to applying it ... (Date published: Aug 29, 2024)\n- The Middle East, with its complex and long standing conflicts, has become a primary arena where Beijing is wading into the art of mediation. China\u2019s Foreign Minister Wang Yi delivered a speech during the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly in late September 2024, focusing on the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.\n- As an adversary state and strategic competitor to the United States, China\u2019s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is viewed with skepticism by both Israel and the United States. (Date published: Jul 29, 2024)\n- Through diplomatic initiatives like the 2024 Beijing Declaration and its active role in international forums, China has sought to position itself as a key mediator in the Israel-Palestine conflict. These efforts reflect China\u2019s growing ambition to enhance its global influence, particularly by supporting the rights of oppressed nations and ... (Date published: Aug 19, 2024)\n- Overall, China has maintained a supportive rhetorical stance without offering a clear resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. China has urged its citizens in Israel and Lebanon to evacuate, condemned Israeli airstrikes, and reaffirmed support for Lebanese sovereignty. This reflects China\u2019s Middle East strategy of avoiding direct ... (Date published: Oct 28, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill China broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine by 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"China mediation Israel Palestine conflict 2024\"", "search_results": "China\u2019s mediation and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict After qualitatively examining the two case studies of Chinese mediation, it is possible to identify several key aspects or interests that led China to enter as a central mediator so as to construct a model of Chinese mediation within the framework of NR theory, with a view to applying it ... (Date published: Aug 29, 2024)\n\nThe Middle East, with its complex and long standing conflicts, has become a primary arena where Beijing is wading into the art of mediation. China\u2019s Foreign Minister Wang Yi delivered a speech during the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly in late September 2024, focusing on the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.\n\nAs an adversary state and strategic competitor to the United States, China\u2019s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is viewed with skepticism by both Israel and the United States. (Date published: Jul 29, 2024)\n\nThrough diplomatic initiatives like the 2024 Beijing Declaration and its active role in international forums, China has sought to position itself as a key mediator in the Israel-Palestine conflict. These efforts reflect China\u2019s growing ambition to enhance its global influence, particularly by supporting the rights of oppressed nations and ... (Date published: Aug 19, 2024)\n\nOverall, China has maintained a supportive rhetorical stance without offering a clear resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. China has urged its citizens in Israel and Lebanon to evacuate, condemned Israeli airstrikes, and reaffirmed support for Lebanese sovereignty. This reflects China\u2019s Middle East strategy of avoiding direct ... (Date published: Oct 28, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Tesla delivered 439,975 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles in Q3 2024\n2. Giga Texas achieved 5,000 Model Y per week production rate by May 2023\n3. Cybertruck production was reported to have \"more than tripled sequentially\" in Q2 2024\n4. Tesla is targeting volume production of Cybertruck for 2026\n5. Model Y is one of Tesla's most popular vehicles and has been in production for years\n6. Cybertruck only began deliveries in late 2023\n7. Based on Q3 numbers, Tesla is producing/delivering roughly 150,000 Model Ys per quarter\n\n\n\n1. Model Y is Tesla's highest-volume vehicle with established production lines and proven demand (Strength: 9/10)\n2. Cybertruck is a new product still in early production ramp, facing typical manufacturing challenges (Strength: 8/10)\n3. Historical precedent shows Tesla takes years to reach high-volume production for new models (Strength: 7/10)\n4. Volume production target for Cybertruck is 2026, indicating 2024 is still early in the ramp (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Triple sequential growth in Cybertruck production shows rapid scaling (Strength: 6/10)\n2. Tesla has more manufacturing experience now than with previous vehicle launches (Strength: 4/10)\n3. High initial demand for Cybertruck could push Tesla to accelerate production (Strength: 3/10)\n\n\n\nThe arithmetic here is quite clear. Even with extremely optimistic assumptions about Cybertruck production ramp:\n- Model Y is currently delivering ~150,000 units per quarter\n- For Cybertruck to exceed this, it would need to reach >600,000 annual delivery rate\n- This would require an unprecedented production ramp for a new vehicle model\n- Even Tesla's most successful launches took years to reach such volumes\n- The company's own stated timeline (volume production in 2026) contradicts this possibility\n\nThe \"triple sequential growth\" in Q2 likely represents going from very low numbers (e.g., hundreds or low thousands) to still relatively low numbers compared to Model Y volumes.\n\n\n0.01\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n- Base rate: Tesla has never ramped a new vehicle to market leadership in its first full year\n- Manufacturing complexity: Cybertruck uses novel manufacturing processes and materials\n- Market size: Total pickup truck market is smaller than crossover SUV market\n- Resource allocation: Tesla would need to prioritize Cybertruck over Model Y to achieve this\n- Supply chain: New vehicle programs typically face more constraints than established ones\n\nThe gap between current Model Y production and required Cybertruck production to exceed it is so large that even significant uncertainty about production ramp rates doesn't materially affect the probability. This would require multiple extremely unlikely events to occur simultaneously.\n\nIf anything, my initial estimate might be slightly high given the mathematical impossibility barring a complete collapse of Model Y production (which itself is extremely unlikely given its established market position).\n\n\n*0.005*", "probability": 0.005, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Ernie/tesla-will-deliver-more-cybertrucks-d4abb23d7f6b", "market_probability": 0.03267271756344466, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nTesla will deliver more Cybertrucks than Model Ys in 2024\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Prin Paska (2024-07-10): A related question:\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Cybertruck and Semi. Tesla is ramping up Cybertruck production, with a target volume production for 2026. The Tesla Semi has also received strong demand due to its superior cost efficiency and performance compared to traditional diesel trucks. Tesla Roadster. Development of the Tesla Roadster is progressing, with final design tweaks nearing ...\n- Tesla updated its Cybertruck production rates as the company reported its Shareholder Deck for Q2 2024, stating the pickup\u2019s manufacturing rate \u201cmore than tripled sequentially.\u201d (Date published: Jul 23, 2024)\n- Tesla produced 469,796 electric vehicles in Q3 2024 and delivered 462,890 including Model S, X, 3, Y, and the Cybertruck. ... Tesla (TSLA) Q3 2024 vehicle production and delivery numbers. ... there is a slim chance it will ever come close to the sales of Model 3 and Model Y. Tesla sold a combined 439,975 Tesla Model 3 and Model Y EVs in this ... (Date published: Oct 3, 2024)\n- Tesla Giga Texas in Austin started production of the Tesla Model Y in April 2022. According to the company, in May 2023, the plant achieved a production rate of 5,000 Model Y (all versions) per week . (Date published: Apr 25, 2024)\n- Tesla reported an increase in production and delivery in the third quarter of 2024, reversing a trend of declining sales from earlier this year. (Date published: Oct 2, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nTesla will deliver more Cybertrucks than Model Ys in 2024\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Tesla Cybertruck and Model Y production targets 2024", "search_results": "Cybertruck and Semi. Tesla is ramping up Cybertruck production, with a target volume production for 2026. The Tesla Semi has also received strong demand due to its superior cost efficiency and performance compared to traditional diesel trucks. Tesla Roadster. Development of the Tesla Roadster is progressing, with final design tweaks nearing ...\n\nTesla updated its Cybertruck production rates as the company reported its Shareholder Deck for Q2 2024, stating the pickup\u2019s manufacturing rate \u201cmore than tripled sequentially.\u201d (Date published: Jul 23, 2024)\n\nTesla produced 469,796 electric vehicles in Q3 2024 and delivered 462,890 including Model S, X, 3, Y, and the Cybertruck. ... Tesla (TSLA) Q3 2024 vehicle production and delivery numbers. ... there is a slim chance it will ever come close to the sales of Model 3 and Model Y. Tesla sold a combined 439,975 Tesla Model 3 and Model Y EVs in this ... (Date published: Oct 3, 2024)\n\nTesla Giga Texas in Austin started production of the Tesla Model Y in April 2022. According to the company, in May 2023, the plant achieved a production rate of 5,000 Model Y (all versions) per week . (Date published: Apr 25, 2024)\n\nTesla reported an increase in production and delivery in the third quarter of 2024, reversing a trend of declining sales from earlier this year. (Date published: Oct 2, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Recent news shows Notion Consulting (different from the software company Notion) was acquired by Sia Partners in January 2024\n2. Notion (software company) acquired Skiff in February 2024, showing they are currently an acquirer rather than target\n3. Notion is a prominent productivity software company valued at $10B+ in 2022\n4. Notion has made multiple acquisitions (Skiff, Flowdash, Cron) showing strong independent growth trajectory\n5. Only 30 days remain in 2024 for any potential acquisition to be announced\n\n\n\n1. Notion is currently in acquisition mode themselves, having bought multiple companies including Skiff in 2024 (Strength: 8/10)\n2. As a highly valued private company with strong growth, Notion likely prefers independence (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Very little time remains in 2024 for complex M&A negotiations to complete (Strength: 9/10)\n4. No credible rumors or reports of acquisition talks have surfaced (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Tech M&A activity could increase with improving economic conditions (Strength: 4/10)\n2. Notion's success could make it an attractive target for larger tech companies (Strength: 5/10)\n3. Some successful companies get acquired at their peak rather than during struggles (Strength: 3/10)\n\n\n\nThe strongest factors against acquisition are:\n1. Notion's recent role as acquirer rather than target\n2. Limited remaining time in 2024\n3. No indication of ongoing talks\n\nThe timing constraint is particularly severe - major tech acquisitions typically involve months of negotiations, due diligence, and regulatory consideration. With only 30 days remaining, even if talks began today, completing a deal in 2024 would be extremely challenging.\n\nNotion's recent acquisitions suggest they are executing an independent growth strategy rather than positioning for sale. Their successful trajectory and high valuation give them significant leverage to remain independent if desired.\n\n\n0.02\n\n\nReviewing my initial forecast:\n\n1. Base rate considerations: What percentage of highly valued ($10B+) private software companies get acquired in any given year? This is likely in the low single digits.\n\n2. Time remaining is a crucial factor - with only 30 days left, the probability of completing an acquisition announcement is significantly lower than it would have been earlier in the year.\n\n3. Counter-indicators are strong: Notion's own acquisition activity strongly suggests they aren't positioning for sale.\n\n4. My tentative probability of 0.02 (1:49 odds) appears well-calibrated given:\n- The extremely short timeframe remaining\n- Notion's demonstrated preference for independence and growth through acquisition\n- Absence of any acquisition rumors or reports\n- Base rates for acquisitions of companies in this position\n\nIf anything, 0.02 might be slightly high given the time constraint alone would make completing a deal extremely difficult even if negotiations were already underway (which we have no evidence for).\n\n\n*0.02*", "probability": 0.02, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/awse/will-software-company-notion-be-acq-d755ccc5db9e", "market_probability": 0.15136294720491908, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill software company Notion be acquired in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nWill resolve 'yes' if an announcement of intent to aquire Notion is made, and is confirmed by Notion, within the year of 2024. \n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Luke Hanks (HankyUSA) (2023-08-22): If Notion got acquired I'd be very nervous.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- This acquisition will enable Sia Partners to have coast-to-coast top-notch business transformation Business Unit in the United States, strengthen its leadership and organizational capabilities, expand into new clients and sectors. Notion Co-Founders and Managing Partners, Christine Andrukonis and Diana Vienne will become Partners at Sia Partners.\n- NEW YORK,, January 23, 2024--Sia Partners announces the acquisition of Notion Consulting. Reinforcing Transformation & Change capabilities on the East Coast in the United States. (Date published: Jan 23, 2024)\n- Announced Date Jan 23, 2024; Acquisition Type Acquisition; Acquisition Status Pending; Disposition of Acquired Organization Combined; Recent News. Edit Recent News Section. News \u2022 Jan 25, 2024. sia-partners.com \u2014 Sia Partners announces the acquisition of Notion Consulting . (Date published: Jan 23, 2024)\n- Acquisition of organizational change group boosts Sia's U.S. positioning. Sia Partners, an international, independent next-gen management and AI consulting firm announces the acquisition of Notion Consulting.Notion is a strategic leadership and organizational change consultancy that helps leaders tackle their most complex business challenges, including transformation, restructuring, strategy ... (Date published: Jan 31, 2024)\n- Notion Acquisitions (4) Notion\u2019s most recent deal was a Merger/Acquisition with Skiff. The deal was made on 01-Feb-2024. Company Name Deal Date Deal Type Deal Size Industry Lead Partner; Skiff: 01-Feb-2024: Merger/Acquisition: Business/Productivity Software: Flowdash: 12-Jul-2022: Merger/Acquisition: Business/Productivity Software: Cron: 09 ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill software company Notion be acquired in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Notion acquisition rumors 2024\"", "search_results": "This acquisition will enable Sia Partners to have coast-to-coast top-notch business transformation Business Unit in the United States, strengthen its leadership and organizational capabilities, expand into new clients and sectors. Notion Co-Founders and Managing Partners, Christine Andrukonis and Diana Vienne will become Partners at Sia Partners.\n\nNEW YORK,, January 23, 2024--Sia Partners announces the acquisition of Notion Consulting. Reinforcing Transformation & Change capabilities on the East Coast in the United States. (Date published: Jan 23, 2024)\n\nAnnounced Date Jan 23, 2024; Acquisition Type Acquisition; Acquisition Status Pending; Disposition of Acquired Organization Combined; Recent News. Edit Recent News Section. News \u2022 Jan 25, 2024. sia-partners.com \u2014 Sia Partners announces the acquisition of Notion Consulting . (Date published: Jan 23, 2024)\n\nAcquisition of organizational change group boosts Sia's U.S. positioning. Sia Partners, an international, independent next-gen management and AI consulting firm announces the acquisition of Notion Consulting.Notion is a strategic leadership and organizational change consultancy that helps leaders tackle their most complex business challenges, including transformation, restructuring, strategy ... (Date published: Jan 31, 2024)\n\nNotion Acquisitions (4) Notion\u2019s most recent deal was a Merger/Acquisition with Skiff. The deal was made on 01-Feb-2024. Company Name Deal Date Deal Type Deal Size Industry Lead Partner; Skiff: 01-Feb-2024: Merger/Acquisition: Business/Productivity Software: Flowdash: 12-Jul-2022: Merger/Acquisition: Business/Productivity Software: Cron: 09 ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The LDS Church believes Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates shown to him by the angel Moroni\n2. Some plates/sections were allegedly not translated and became \"lost\"\n3. The original plates were reportedly returned to the angel Moroni after translation\n4. The LDS Church is a highly organized, hierarchical institution that makes official pronouncements through established channels\n5. Recent publications (2024) still discuss the gold plates in historical/theological terms without claiming new discoveries\n6. The Church has maintained consistent doctrine about the plates for nearly 200 years\n7. Major doctrinal or historical claims by the LDS Church typically involve careful preparation and official processes\n\n\n\n1. The LDS Church is generally very careful and conservative about making major claims that could affect core doctrine (9/10)\n2. There is no historical precedent for the Church suddenly \"finding\" lost religious artifacts (8/10)\n3. With only one month left in 2024, such a momentous announcement would likely have shown preliminary signs (7/10)\n4. Modern archaeological and historical scrutiny would make claiming to find ancient artifacts extremely risky for the Church's credibility (8/10)\n5. The Church's recent publications continue to discuss the plates in historical terms, suggesting no imminent revelation (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. The Church believes in continuing revelation and that lost scripture can be restored (3/10)\n2. The Church could theoretically claim a spiritual rather than physical \"finding\" of the lost contents (2/10)\n3. December often sees significant Church announcements due to the Christmas season (1/10)\n\n\n\nThe mechanisms at play here involve institutional decision-making, religious doctrine, and reputational risk. The LDS Church has strong incentives to maintain credibility and typically moves very deliberately on major doctrinal matters. The \"lost plates\" narrative has been stable for nearly two centuries, and suddenly claiming to have found them would represent an enormous departure from established patterns.\n\nThe timing aspect is particularly important - with only one month remaining in 2024, such a momentous announcement would likely have shown preliminary signs or preparations. The recent scholarly discussion of the plates in historical terms suggests business as usual rather than any imminent revelations.\n\nThe risks of making such a claim in the modern era of heightened scrutiny and instant global communication would be substantial. The Church leadership is sophisticated enough to understand these dynamics.\n\n\n0.003\n\n\nReviewing this forecast requires considering base rates for similar religious claims and institutional behavior. The LDS Church has not made comparable claims about finding lost artifacts in its modern history. While they believe in continuing revelation, this typically takes other forms.\n\nA key consideration is whether 0.003 (about 1:333 odds) is too low given the general uncertainty in human affairs. However, given the specific context - only one month remaining, no preparatory signals, the Church's careful nature, and the massive implications of such a claim - this very low probability seems justified.\n\nThe main counterfactual to consider would be a spiritual rather than physical \"finding,\" but even this would represent a major doctrinal development that would likely have shown preliminary signs by now.\n\nThe sources appear reliable and unbiased, mostly consisting of straightforward historical and institutional information about the Church.\n\n\n*0.003*", "probability": 0.003, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/FernandoFrancoFelix/will-the-lds-church-mormons-claim-t", "market_probability": 0.04181142170367215, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill the LDS Church (mormons) claim to have found the lost tablets in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nThe LDS Church (aka mormons) believe that their sacred book was translated from golden metal plates, but they also believe that some of them were not translated and became lost, and that one day they will be found and translated\n\nWill the church claim to have finally found these tablets in 2024?\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- \u201cMormon and the Gold Plates,\u201d Friend, November 2024, 26\u201327. Scripture Stories. Mormon and the Gold Plates. Illustrations by Andrew Bosley. Mormon was a prophet. When he was 10 years old, a leader named Ammaron told him to remember what happened to his people so he could write it on the gold plates later. The plates were what the Nephite ...\n- In 1823, when the angel Moroni first appeared to Joseph Smith, he told Joseph about the gold plates, saying \u201cthere was a book deposited, written upon gold plates. \u2026 He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants\u201d (Joseph Smith\u2014History 1:34).\n- Joseph\u2019s preface and a testimonial written by a group of eight witnesses described the plates as having an \u201cappearance of gold.\u201d 2 The Book of Mormon authors simply said they engraved their writings on \u201cplates.\u201d 3 In their descriptions, Joseph Smith and the witnesses emphasized the antiquity of the plates and the curious engravings, 4 ...\n- The claim is these are gold plates i.e this method can and has been used to preserve ancient Hebrew religious texts. And the fact you are posting this right after they posted it tells me you have some major issues to work through in your relationship to Mormonism.\n- Richard Lyman Bushman\u2019s most recent book focuses on presenting a cultural history of the gold plates.I\u2019ve reviewed Joseph Smith\u2019s Gold Plates in the past, but Dr. Bushman did an interview that was recently published on the Latter-day Saint history blog From the Desk that had some interesting tidbits. What follows here is a co-post to the full interview. (Date published: Apr 9, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill the LDS Church (mormons) claim to have found the lost tablets in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"LDS Church golden plates discovery 2024 announcement\"", "search_results": "\u201cMormon and the Gold Plates,\u201d Friend, November 2024, 26\u201327. Scripture Stories. Mormon and the Gold Plates. Illustrations by Andrew Bosley. Mormon was a prophet. When he was 10 years old, a leader named Ammaron told him to remember what happened to his people so he could write it on the gold plates later. The plates were what the Nephite ...\n\nIn 1823, when the angel Moroni first appeared to Joseph Smith, he told Joseph about the gold plates, saying \u201cthere was a book deposited, written upon gold plates. \u2026 He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants\u201d (Joseph Smith\u2014History 1:34).\n\nJoseph\u2019s preface and a testimonial written by a group of eight witnesses described the plates as having an \u201cappearance of gold.\u201d 2 The Book of Mormon authors simply said they engraved their writings on \u201cplates.\u201d 3 In their descriptions, Joseph Smith and the witnesses emphasized the antiquity of the plates and the curious engravings, 4 ...\n\nThe claim is these are gold plates i.e this method can and has been used to preserve ancient Hebrew religious texts. And the fact you are posting this right after they posted it tells me you have some major issues to work through in your relationship to Mormonism.\n\nRichard Lyman Bushman\u2019s most recent book focuses on presenting a cultural history of the gold plates.I\u2019ve reviewed Joseph Smith\u2019s Gold Plates in the past, but Dr. Bushman did an interview that was recently published on the Latter-day Saint history blog From the Desk that had some interesting tidbits. What follows here is a co-post to the full interview. (Date published: Apr 9, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The Commander Rules Committee makes banning decisions for the Commander format\n2. Their philosophy prioritizes creativity and slower gameplay compared to other formats\n3. Recent ban announcement occurred on September 23, 2024\n4. Ban announcements typically happen on Mondays, with a schedule change announced in August 2024\n5. The Rules Committee has shown reluctance to ban iconic cards, as evidenced by their explicit defense of keeping Sol Ring legal despite it meeting ban criteria\n6. Only one more ban announcement window appears possible in 2024 given the date (Dec 1, 2024)\n7. Commander banned list decisions prioritize format health and player experience\n\n\n\n1. Limited time remaining in 2024 for additional ban announcements (Strength: 8/10)\n2. A major ban announcement already occurred in September 2024, making another one less likely (Strength: 6/10)\n3. Rules Committee tends to be conservative with bans, preferring to let the format self-regulate (Strength: 7/10)\n4. If The One Ring was problematic enough to warrant a ban, it likely would have been included in the September announcement (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. The Rules Committee has shown willingness to make bans when necessary for format health (Strength: 6/10)\n2. There is still one potential ban announcement window in December 2024 (Strength: 4/10)\n3. The One Ring could be seen as contradicting the Committee's philosophy of slower gameplay (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key considerations here revolve around timing and necessity. With only one month remaining in 2024 and a major ban announcement already made in September, the window for action is extremely narrow. The Rules Committee's demonstrated conservative approach to bans, particularly highlighted by their stance on Sol Ring, suggests they don't make ban decisions lightly or frequently.\n\nThe fact that The One Ring wasn't banned in September's announcement is particularly telling. If it was causing significant format issues, it would likely have been addressed then, when they were already making format adjustments.\n\nThe temporal constraint is especially significant - having just one potential announcement window remaining dramatically reduces the likelihood of action, particularly for a format where bans are relatively rare events.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nLooking at this from a base rate perspective, Commander bans are relatively rare events, and mid-month bans even rarer. The fact that we're looking at December specifically, after a recent ban announcement, makes this even less likely.\n\nWhen examining potential biases, I need to be careful not to overweight the possibility of dramatic action (a ban) versus the more common state of maintaining the status quo. The Rules Committee has demonstrated they're willing to let powerful cards exist in the format if they don't fundamentally break the game experience.\n\nThe temporal constraint of having just one month left in 2024, combined with the recent September ban announcement and the Rules Committee's conservative ban philosophy, suggests my initial assessment may have been slightly high. The circumstances would need to be truly exceptional to motivate a ban in this specific window.\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/FakeWeiss/will-the-one-ring-be-banned-in-comm", "market_probability": 0.14140596650922158, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill \"The One Ring\" be banned in Commander by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Effective Date for Magic Online: September 23, 2024, at 12 p.m. PDT Commander Rules Committee Explanation of Bans The philosophy of Commander prioritizes creativity, and one of the ways we have historically reflected that in the rules and ban list is to encourage a slower pace of game than traditional formats. (Date published: Sep 23, 2024)\n- An Updated Banned and Restricted Announcement Cadence. Today, we're going to start off by addressing an issue we've had with the timing of our Banned and Restricted announcements. The current timing tied B&R announcements to set releases, placing the announcement on the Monday prior to the start of Duskmourn: House of Horror previews. The goal ... (Date published: Aug 26, 2024)\n- The Commander card pool consists of all regulation-sized Magic cards publicly released by Wizards of the Coast other than those with silver borders, gold borders or acorn-shaped security stamps. Cards are legal to play with as of their sets\u2019 prerelease. The following is the official banned list for commander games.\n- We should also talk about the elephant in the room. We\u2019re not banning Sol Ring and have no desire to. Yes, based on the criteria we\u2019ve talked about here, it would be banned. Sol Ring is the iconic card of the format, and it\u2019s sufficiently tied to the identity of the format that it defies the laws of physics in a way that no other card does. (Date published: Sep 23, 2024)\n- Magic Online Banned and Restricted Policies. Formats unique to Magic Online have their own Banned and Restricted lists. Those lists are maintained on the format pages themselves. Use the links below to view any of those pages. For formats that exist in tabletop as well as Magic Online, banned and restricted announcements are announced on Mondays by Tabletop Studio (R&D), and are effective on ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill \"The One Ring\" be banned in Commander by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"The One Ring Magic Commander banned list 2024 updates\"", "search_results": "Effective Date for Magic Online: September 23, 2024, at 12 p.m. PDT Commander Rules Committee Explanation of Bans The philosophy of Commander prioritizes creativity, and one of the ways we have historically reflected that in the rules and ban list is to encourage a slower pace of game than traditional formats. (Date published: Sep 23, 2024)\n\nAn Updated Banned and Restricted Announcement Cadence. Today, we're going to start off by addressing an issue we've had with the timing of our Banned and Restricted announcements. The current timing tied B&R announcements to set releases, placing the announcement on the Monday prior to the start of Duskmourn: House of Horror previews. The goal ... (Date published: Aug 26, 2024)\n\nThe Commander card pool consists of all regulation-sized Magic cards publicly released by Wizards of the Coast other than those with silver borders, gold borders or acorn-shaped security stamps. Cards are legal to play with as of their sets\u2019 prerelease. The following is the official banned list for commander games.\n\nWe should also talk about the elephant in the room. We\u2019re not banning Sol Ring and have no desire to. Yes, based on the criteria we\u2019ve talked about here, it would be banned. Sol Ring is the iconic card of the format, and it\u2019s sufficiently tied to the identity of the format that it defies the laws of physics in a way that no other card does. (Date published: Sep 23, 2024)\n\nMagic Online Banned and Restricted Policies. Formats unique to Magic Online have their own Banned and Restricted lists. Those lists are maintained on the format pages themselves. Use the links below to view any of those pages. For formats that exist in tabletop as well as Magic Online, banned and restricted announcements are announced on Mondays by Tabletop Studio (R&D), and are effective on ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. As of 2024, several prominent LLMs have parameter counts well below 1 trillion:\n - Alpaca: 7B parameters (March 2024)\n - LLaMA 2: 7B-70B parameters (July 2023)\n - Mistral: 7B parameters (June 2024)\n - Unnamed model: 340B parameters\n\n2. Google Brain has previously tested models up to 1.6T parameters (2021)\n\n3. Parameter count isn't necessarily correlated with performance:\n - Alpaca (7B) performs similarly to GPT-3.5\n - Mistral (7B) outperforms similarly-sized LLaMA models\n\n4. Major companies often don't publish parameter counts\n\n5. Recent trend has been toward more efficient architectures rather than just scaling up parameters\n\n\n\n1. Companies like Google have already demonstrated ability to train >1T parameter models (8/10)\n\n2. Competitive pressure might drive companies to pursue larger models to gain advantages (6/10)\n\n3. Advances in hardware and distributed computing could make training larger models more feasible (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Recent successful models show strong performance with far fewer parameters (9/10)\n\n2. Trend toward efficiency over raw size suggests focus on better architectures (8/10)\n\n3. Economic constraints favor smaller, more efficient models (7/10)\n\n4. Most recent major releases have been well under 1T parameters (8/10)\n\n5. Many leading companies are focusing on specialized, smaller models rather than scaling up (7/10)\n\n\n\nThe key question here isn't just about technical capability to build >1T parameter models, but whether that would represent the \"best\" LLM. Recent trends strongly suggest that architectural improvements and efficient training methods are proving more valuable than simply scaling up parameter counts.\n\nThe fact that smaller models (7B-70B range) are achieving comparable or superior performance to larger ones indicates diminishing returns from parameter scaling. Additionally, the economic incentives favor more efficient models due to lower training and deployment costs.\n\nMost importantly, the trend among major AI companies appears to be moving toward specialized, efficient architectures rather than competing on raw parameter count.\n\n\n0.85\n\n\nSeveral additional considerations:\n\n1. Historical precedent: The most widely adopted and successful models have typically been in the billions, not trillions, of parameters.\n\n2. Base rate: No widely-used model has exceeded 1T parameters despite technical capability to do so.\n\n3. There's a selection pressure toward smaller, more efficient models due to:\n - Deployment costs\n - Environmental concerns\n - Practical applications requiring faster inference\n - Better interpretability\n\n4. The fact that companies sometimes don't publish parameter counts could affect resolution, but this typically happens with smaller models where parameter count isn't a marketing advantage.\n\nMy initial probability seems reasonable given these factors, though I'll adjust slightly higher given the strong convergence of evidence toward smaller, more efficient models being the future direction.\n\n\n*0.88*", "probability": 0.88, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/_deleted_/will-the-best-llm-subjective-in-202-285cb808c978", "market_probability": 0.2972627334463496, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill the best LLM in 2024 have <1 trillion parameters?\n \n**Description:**\nConversational LLM\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Project Victory (2024-03-03): That's going to be hard to resolve with some companies not publishing parameter count.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Release date: March 27, 2024. Number of Parameters: 7 billion. What is it? Alpaca is a 7 billion-parameter language model developed by a Stanford research team and fine-tuned from Meta's LLaMA 7B model. Users will notice that although being much smaller, Alpaca performs similarly to text-DaVinci-003 (ChatGPT 3.5). (Date published: Sep 9, 2024)\n- In a departure from the norm, Meta has embraced openness by releasing its powerful Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA) and its upgraded version, LLaMA 2. Meta launched LLaMA 2 in July 2023. It is a pre-trained generative text model with 7 to 70 billion parameters. The developers fine-tuned it with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). (Date published: Dec 20, 2023)\n- Mistral is a 7 billion parameter language model that outperforms Llama's language model of a similar size on all evaluated benchmarks. Mistral also has a fine-tuned model that is specialized to follow instructions. Its smaller size enables self-hosting and competent performance for business purposes. It was released under the Apache 2.0 license ... (Date published: Jun 21, 2024)\n- \"The guiding design principle for Switch Transformers is to maximize the parameter count of a Transformer model in a simple and computationally efficient way,\" the researchers explained. Google Brain found that this approach could scale, testing out stable models from the hundreds of billions of parameters, all the way up to 1.6 trillion ... (Date published: Jan 15, 2021)\n- This model has 340 billion parameters, and supports a context length of 4,096 tokens. It is pre-trained for a total of 9 trillion tokens, consisting of a diverse assortment of English-based texts, 50+ natural languages and 40+ coding languages. Model Size: 340 billion parameters Context Window Size: 4096 tokens Max Output: 4k tokens\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill the best LLM in 2024 have <1 trillion parameters?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"largest language model parameter count 2024\"", "search_results": "Release date: March 27, 2024. Number of Parameters: 7 billion. What is it? Alpaca is a 7 billion-parameter language model developed by a Stanford research team and fine-tuned from Meta's LLaMA 7B model. Users will notice that although being much smaller, Alpaca performs similarly to text-DaVinci-003 (ChatGPT 3.5). (Date published: Sep 9, 2024)\n\nIn a departure from the norm, Meta has embraced openness by releasing its powerful Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA) and its upgraded version, LLaMA 2. Meta launched LLaMA 2 in July 2023. It is a pre-trained generative text model with 7 to 70 billion parameters. The developers fine-tuned it with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). (Date published: Dec 20, 2023)\n\nMistral is a 7 billion parameter language model that outperforms Llama's language model of a similar size on all evaluated benchmarks. Mistral also has a fine-tuned model that is specialized to follow instructions. Its smaller size enables self-hosting and competent performance for business purposes. It was released under the Apache 2.0 license ... (Date published: Jun 21, 2024)\n\n\"The guiding design principle for Switch Transformers is to maximize the parameter count of a Transformer model in a simple and computationally efficient way,\" the researchers explained. Google Brain found that this approach could scale, testing out stable models from the hundreds of billions of parameters, all the way up to 1.6 trillion ... (Date published: Jan 15, 2021)\n\nThis model has 340 billion parameters, and supports a context length of 4,096 tokens. It is pre-trained for a total of 9 trillion tokens, consisting of a diverse assortment of English-based texts, 50+ natural languages and 40+ coding languages. Model Size: 340 billion parameters Context Window Size: 4096 tokens Max Output: 4k tokens"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Billy Mitchell is suing Karl Jobst for defamation in Brisbane, Australia\n2. The trial date was September 16, 2024\n3. The case involves Mitchell's gaming achievements and allegations of cheating\n4. During his deposition, Mitchell apparently downplayed Jobst's alleged defamation compared to Twin Galaxies\n5. Recent trial coverage suggests \"cracks in Billy Mitchell's story are starting to show\"\n6. Karl Jobst and David Race have already testified for the defense\n7. The trial has received detailed coverage through perfectpacman.com\n8. For a positive resolution, Mitchell (plaintiff) must win\n9. Case dismissal or retraction counts as a Mitchell loss\n10. Defamation cases generally have a high burden of proof\n\n\n\n1. Mitchell's own deposition statement undermining the severity of Jobst's alleged defamation severely weakens his case (9/10)\n2. Recent coverage suggesting \"cracks\" in Mitchell's story indicates his case may be falling apart under scrutiny (7/10)\n3. Defamation cases are notably difficult to win, especially for public figures (8/10)\n4. The case being tried in Australia, where Jobst is from, may give the defendant home court advantage (4/10)\n5. Multiple witnesses including Jobst and Race have already testified for the defense, suggesting strong counter-evidence (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Mitchell has experience with legal proceedings and likely wouldn't pursue the case without some confidence (4/10)\n2. As a prominent gaming figure, Mitchell may have resources for strong legal representation (3/10)\n3. If Jobst made any factual errors in his coverage, even minor ones could support Mitchell's case (5/10)\n\n\n\nThe strongest factors here point toward Mitchell losing:\n1. His own deposition statement essentially contradicts the premise of serious harm from Jobst's statements\n2. The trial coverage suggests his case is weakening rather than strengthening\n3. The inherently high burden of proof in defamation cases\n4. Multiple defense witnesses have testified\n\nThe mechanisms favoring Mitchell are significantly weaker and more speculative. They rely on general considerations about resources and motivation rather than specific evidence from the case proceedings.\n\nThe fact that there's detailed negative coverage of Mitchell's case performance from multiple sources, without corresponding positive coverage, suggests this isn't merely selective reporting bias.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nLet's examine this forecast through additional lenses:\n\n1. Base rates: Defamation cases generally have low success rates, especially for public figures. This aligns with my low probability.\n\n2. Specific evidence: The reported trial developments, particularly Mitchell's own statements minimizing Jobst's impact, provide strong case-specific justification for deviating below even the typical low base rate for defamation cases.\n\n3. Quality of information: The sources appear to be following the trial closely and providing detailed coverage, rather than just sensationalistic headlines.\n\n4. Bias check: While there might be some bias in the coverage favoring Jobst, Mitchell's own deposition statement is a direct quote that significantly undermines his case.\n\nThe confluence of the base rate and specific negative case developments supports a quite low probability, though not extremely low given that surprising court outcomes do occur.\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/kiudee/will-billy-mitchell-win-his-defamat", "market_probability": 0.14388939259006953, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Billy Mitchell win his defamation lawsuit against Karl Jobst?\n \n**Description:**\nContext: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jfQZU3V6qo\n\nResolves based on the first verdict, excluding appeals.\n\nResolves positively, if the plaintiff (Billy Mitchell) wins.\nResolves negatively, if the defendant (Karl Jobst) wins, the case is otherwise dismissed or the case is retracted.\n\nThe trial date is September 16, 2024. Should the trial continue into 2025, the closing date will be adjusted.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Kiudee (2024-11-07): Here is a good blog following the trial:\\nhttps://perfectpacman.com/2024/10/23/karl-day-7/\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- To that point, KB recalled the moment in Billy\u2019s deposition testimony, which was given after this lawsuit started, where Billy was asked about alleged defamation by Karl Jobst, to which Billy said words to the effect that it was nothing in comparison to the defamation by Twin Galaxies, which was almost word-for-word the opposite of what he ... (Date published: Sep 15, 2024)\n- We back, folks! Back for another round from the Brisbane defamation trial between disgraced gaming cheater Billy Mitchell and absolute legend Karl Jobst. With the plaintiff\u2019s case out of the way, and Karl Jobst and David Race having already testified for the defense, Day 6 was just for the rest of Karl\u2019s roster. (Date published: Sep 15, 2024)\n- The cracks in Billy Mitchell's story are starting to show. What is the latest from his defamation case against Karl Jobst?Blog Link perfectpacman.com (Date published: Sep 18, 2024)\n- William \u2018Billy\u2019 James Mitchell sues YouTuber Karl Jobst for defamation in Brisbane. A famous arcade gamer is suing an Australian content creator after claiming his reputation was damaged in a ... (Date published: Oct 11, 2024)\n- Daily recap summary videos following the legal battle between Karl Jobst vs Billy Mitchell. You can read the full daily at: https://perfectpacman.com/\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Billy Mitchell win his defamation lawsuit against Karl Jobst?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Billy Mitchell Karl Jobst defamation lawsuit status update", "search_results": "To that point, KB recalled the moment in Billy\u2019s deposition testimony, which was given after this lawsuit started, where Billy was asked about alleged defamation by Karl Jobst, to which Billy said words to the effect that it was nothing in comparison to the defamation by Twin Galaxies, which was almost word-for-word the opposite of what he ... (Date published: Sep 15, 2024)\n\nWe back, folks! Back for another round from the Brisbane defamation trial between disgraced gaming cheater Billy Mitchell and absolute legend Karl Jobst. With the plaintiff\u2019s case out of the way, and Karl Jobst and David Race having already testified for the defense, Day 6 was just for the rest of Karl\u2019s roster. (Date published: Sep 15, 2024)\n\nThe cracks in Billy Mitchell's story are starting to show. What is the latest from his defamation case against Karl Jobst?Blog Link perfectpacman.com (Date published: Sep 18, 2024)\n\nWilliam \u2018Billy\u2019 James Mitchell sues YouTuber Karl Jobst for defamation in Brisbane. A famous arcade gamer is suing an Australian content creator after claiming his reputation was damaged in a ... (Date published: Oct 11, 2024)\n\nDaily recap summary videos following the legal battle between Karl Jobst vs Billy Mitchell. You can read the full daily at: https://perfectpacman.com/"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Elm's last official release was 0.19.1 on Oct 21, 2019 (over 4 years ago)\n2. Elm is primarily maintained by one person, Evan Czaplicki\n3. Recent comments from 2024 indicate Evan has been working on a language with a C backend for PostgreSQL tables\n4. The language has had very long gaps between releases historically\n5. There are ongoing discussions and activity in the Elm community forums as of late 2024\n6. The language has faced criticism for its centralized development model and Evan's reluctance to work with other developers\n7. Elm has maintained a philosophy of careful, considered changes rather than rapid releases\n8. The market closes December 31, 2024, leaving only one month for a release to occur\n\n\n\n1. Historical precedent - Over 4 years without a release suggests deep structural barriers to frequent releases (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Single maintainer bottleneck - Evan's solo maintenance approach severely limits development velocity (Strength: 9/10)\n3. Evidence of different focus - Recent information suggests Evan is working on other projects rather than an Elm release (Strength: 7/10)\n4. Time constraint - Only one month remains in 2024, making a sudden release unlikely (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Ongoing community activity suggests the language isn't abandoned (Strength: 4/10)\n2. Previous long gaps between releases don't preclude a new release (Strength: 3/10)\n3. Evan's work on related projects could potentially feed back into Elm (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe key factors heavily lean toward \"no.\" The combination of:\n- Extremely short remaining timeframe (1 month)\n- Single maintainer bottleneck\n- Clear evidence of focus on other projects\n- Historical precedent of very slow release cycles\nCreates a strong case against a release happening.\n\nThe \"yes\" factors are much weaker and mostly speak to possibility rather than probability. While the language isn't dead, the mechanisms that would drive a release within this specific timeframe are not apparent.\n\nThe time constraint is particularly damning - even if Evan were to start working on a release today, the testing and preparation required would make completing it within one month extremely unlikely.\n\n\n0.05\n\n\nLet's examine this from a base rate perspective:\n- Software projects with single maintainers typically release much less frequently than team-maintained ones\n- When projects go multiple years without releases, the probability of a release in any given month becomes very low\n- December specifically tends to have fewer software releases due to holidays\n\nMy tentative probability of 5% feels roughly calibrated. It acknowledges the possibility (it's not technically impossible) while recognizing the multiple strong factors against it. A lower probability like 1% might be too extreme given we can't completely rule out a surprise release, while anything above 10% would seem overly optimistic given the constraints.\n\nOne potential bias to check for would be overweighting recent information about Evan's other projects - even if he is working on something else, he could theoretically still release Elm updates. However, given the time constraint, this doesn't materially affect the probability.\n\n\n*0.05*", "probability": 0.05, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/MrLuke255/will-elm-programming-language-have", "market_probability": 0.10558857955558902, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Elm programming language have a new official release before the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nMost recent release was on Oct 21, 2019: https://github.com/elm/compiler/releases/tag/0.19.1\n\nRelated links:\n\nhttps://old.reddit.com/r/elm/comments/y6hgwx/is_elm_still_being_developed/\n\nhttps://github.com/elm/compiler/issues/2308#issuecomment-1691960135\n\nhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36274921\n\n(https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vexdf-Rd-AE?si=I15ih60XsvvIJHOi)\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- wadu (2023-09-20): I have no clue about this market except I do know that Elm devs are super weird. \n- MrLuke255 (2023-09-20): Are you also a dev?\n- wadu (2023-09-20): Yeah I used to use Elm at my old job. It is a fucking tedious language to use \n- MrLuke255 (2023-09-20): Yep, I won't argue, but it does have some good parts. Too bad that all messages must go through all the layers down \ud83d\ude10\n- wadu (2023-09-20): Lol that part was fucking awful. And working with the JS sockets and decoders and all that bullshit\n- MrLuke255 (2023-09-20): But function composition is nice, at least I like functional style :3\n- tfae (2023-09-20): I think Evan's core problem is that he refuses to work with other people. Sure, Elm is simple, but is it one-developer simple? Leo de Moura pulled a similar stunt with Lean 4, but he had a team supporting him, and we saw a steady stream of commits all through to release. I don't see anything like this with Elm.\n- MrLuke255 (2023-09-21): Interesting, never heard of it. Is it mostly for mathematicians?\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Evan Czaplicki\u2014the creator of the Elm programming language \u2014joins me to discuss the state and future of Elm, the friendly, type-safe functional programming l...\n- Evan Czaplicki evancz Follow. Designer/developer of @elm. 5.8k followers ... Compiler for Elm, a functional language for reliable webapps. Haskell 7.6k 662 functional-programming-in-elm functional-programming-in-elm Public. DRAFT outlining some techniques of functional programming ...\n- Discuss anything Elm related, from beginner questions to compiler design. ... 8488: November 30, 2017 Understanding side effects in Elm vs other languages. Learn. 4: 181: November 27, 2024 At what point did programming take a wrong turn. ... with Evan Czaplicki. Request Feedback. 6: 1143: October 24, 2024 Drag and Drop of Directories ...\n- INTRODUCTION. Although I have been thinking about the subject of this thread for some years, this thread is triggered by a presentation that Evan gave a few months ago, where along with analyzing the economics of funding new computer languages/projects, he reveals that he has been working on a language that has a C back-end that generates PostgreSQL tables and asks for input on what to do with ... (Date published: Jan 19, 2024)\n- Evan Czaplicki\u2014the creator of the Elm programming language \u2014joins me to discuss the state and future of Elm, the friendly, type-safe functional programming language. On many fronts Elm has been a huge success: it\u2019s been popular with new and seasoned programmers alike; it\u2019s helped push several language ideas into the mainstream; it\u2019s ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Elm programming language have a new official release before the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Elm programming language status 2024 Evan Czaplicki development\"", "search_results": "Evan Czaplicki\u2014the creator of the Elm programming language \u2014joins me to discuss the state and future of Elm, the friendly, type-safe functional programming l...\n\nEvan Czaplicki evancz Follow. Designer/developer of @elm. 5.8k followers ... Compiler for Elm, a functional language for reliable webapps. Haskell 7.6k 662 functional-programming-in-elm functional-programming-in-elm Public. DRAFT outlining some techniques of functional programming ...\n\nDiscuss anything Elm related, from beginner questions to compiler design. ... 8488: November 30, 2017 Understanding side effects in Elm vs other languages. Learn. 4: 181: November 27, 2024 At what point did programming take a wrong turn. ... with Evan Czaplicki. Request Feedback. 6: 1143: October 24, 2024 Drag and Drop of Directories ...\n\nINTRODUCTION. Although I have been thinking about the subject of this thread for some years, this thread is triggered by a presentation that Evan gave a few months ago, where along with analyzing the economics of funding new computer languages/projects, he reveals that he has been working on a language that has a C back-end that generates PostgreSQL tables and asks for input on what to do with ... (Date published: Jan 19, 2024)\n\nEvan Czaplicki\u2014the creator of the Elm programming language \u2014joins me to discuss the state and future of Elm, the friendly, type-safe functional programming language. On many fronts Elm has been a huge success: it\u2019s been popular with new and seasoned programmers alike; it\u2019s helped push several language ideas into the mainstream; it\u2019s ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Lumina began taking pre-orders on April 9th, 2024\n2. Initial shipping estimate was June 2024\n3. June 18th update pushed estimate to August 2024\n4. September 21st update indicated continued facility setup delays\n5. November 26th email announced they are \"ready to begin shipping product\"\n6. West Coast customers expected to receive shipments first\n7. Company has established a bioproduction facility in Palo Alto\n8. The facility setup took \"about three times longer than expected\"\n9. Resolution requires a tracking number to be received by December 31st, 2024\n10. The product involves genetically modified bacteria for cavity prevention\n11. Today's date is December 1st, leaving 30 days until market close\n\n\n\n1. Despite announcing readiness to ship, actual logistics and fulfillment could face unexpected delays (7/10)\n2. Complex biotech products often face last-minute quality control or regulatory issues (6/10)\n3. Company has consistently missed previous timeline estimates (8/10)\n4. Holiday season shipping volumes could cause additional delays (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. November 26th announcement specifically states they are \"ready to begin shipping\" (9/10)\n2. Company has successfully established their production facility (8/10)\n3. Only 5 days have passed since shipping announcement, suggesting process is likely already underway (7/10)\n4. West Coast shipping prioritization suggests concrete logistics planning (6/10)\n5. One month is a reasonable timeframe for initial shipments to begin (8/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is whether Lumina can begin shipping within the next 30 days, given they've announced readiness. Their past delays are concerning, but those were primarily related to facility setup, which is now complete.\n\nThe question only requires a tracking number to be issued, not delivery completion. This significantly lowers the bar for success. Even if there are some initial hiccups, they have a full month to send out at least some shipments.\n\nThe November 26th announcement seems particularly credible as it addresses specific logistics details (shipping zones, West Coast priority) rather than just general promises. This suggests they've moved beyond facility setup to actual operational planning.\n\nWhile their track record of delays is concerning, the nature of those delays (facility setup) is different from the current challenge (order fulfillment). The hard part - getting the facility operational - appears to be complete.\n\n\n0.85\n\n\nLet's examine this probability more carefully:\n\n1. Base rate considerations: Biotech startups often face delays and setbacks, but once production facilities are operational, basic fulfillment is relatively straightforward.\n\n2. Time pressure: With 30 days remaining, even significant shipping delays would still allow time for initial orders to begin processing. The resolution doesn't require all orders to ship, just the specified pre-order.\n\n3. Credibility check: The detailed nature of the November 26th announcement, including specific geographic shipping information, suggests real operational progress rather than aspirational planning.\n\n4. Risk assessment: The main risks now are operational/logistical rather than technical/regulatory, which are generally more manageable.\n\n5. Conservative adjustment: While very optimistic about shipping beginning, should factor in some probability of unexpected issues given past delays.\n\nThe 0.85 probability appears well-calibrated. It reflects strong positive indicators while maintaining appropriate uncertainty given the company's history and potential for unexpected issues.\n\n\n*0.85*", "probability": 0.85, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/ryanabel/will-lumina-will-ship-their-oral-pr", "market_probability": 0.9579807669809696, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Lumina will ship their oral probiotic product to retail pre-order customers before the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nLumina began taking public pre-orders for their oral probiotic product on April 9th, 2024 with an estimated ship date of June 2024.\n\nAn update sent via email to customers on June 18th, 2024 read:\n\nWe\u2019re in the process of setting up our new bioproduction facility, and it took us longer than expected to find a space that was up to our standards. We\u2019re now in the setup, registration, and permitting process, but these hurdles have added some weeks to our expected shipping date. Our original shipping timeline was \u201cJune\u201d; we\u2019d like to now conservatively say \u201cAugust\u201d.\n\nThe August estimate came and went then a reply from the @LuminaProbiotic account on Twitter on September 21st, 2024 read:\n\nWe're still setting up our new bioproduction facility in Palo Alto\u2014yeah, this has taken a lot longer than planned. The GARM clinic in Honduras has got product available if you're up for the trip\n\nhttps://x.com/LuminaProbiotic/status/1837529634998833295\n\nThis market resolves to \"Yes\" if my pre-order placed April 10th, 2024 at 3:47:03 AM UTC ships (i.e., I receive a tracking number from Lumina) on or before December 31st, 2024.\n\nUPDATE: An email sent to pre-order customers on November 26th, 2024 at 5:34 AM UTC reads:\n\nHello, Lumina Probiotic customers! Thank you for your saintly patience. We're now ready to begin shipping product.\n\nIt took us about three times longer than expected to get the bioproduction facility up and running, but we're finally here.\n\nDepending on what shipping zone of America you live in, it might take a different number of weeks for it to arrive; people living on the West Coast should expect to receive theirs first.\n\nThank you for being an early adopter! We couldn't have gotten here without you, and it means a lot that you believe in us.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- 54% chance. Lumina began taking public pre-orders for their oral probiotic product on April 9th, 2024 with an estimated ship date of June 2024. An update sent via email to customers on June 18th, 2024 read: We\u2019re in the process of setting up our new bioproduction facility, and it took us longer than expected to find a space that was up to our standards. We\u2019re now in the setup, registration ...\n- The manufacturing of Lumina Probiotic takes place at a state-of-the-art facility in Palo Alto, California. The facility adheres to the most stringent standards to guarantee the consistency and ... (Date published: Sep 25, 2024)\n- Since publishing my post expressing safety and efficacy concerns about Lumina Probiotic, the anti-cavity genetically modified probiotic, I've received answers to some of my concerns from Aaron Silverbook, the founder. ... He also has informed me that they are investing significant sums and efforts in their own production facility. He's ... (Date published: May 20, 2024)\n- Lumina Probiotic has said a genetically modified microbe could prevent cavities. Experts, though, have safety concerns ... May 22, 2024. 9 min read. This Start-Up Wants You to Put Custom Bacteria ... (Date published: May 22, 2024)\n- Lumina Probiotic introduces genetically modified bacteria which don't secrete lactic acid. A one-time application of the BCS3-L1 strain displaces existing bacteria. Understand the Science\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Lumina will ship their oral probiotic product to retail pre-order customers before the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Lumina Probiotic production facility Palo Alto status 2024", "search_results": "54% chance. Lumina began taking public pre-orders for their oral probiotic product on April 9th, 2024 with an estimated ship date of June 2024. An update sent via email to customers on June 18th, 2024 read: We\u2019re in the process of setting up our new bioproduction facility, and it took us longer than expected to find a space that was up to our standards. We\u2019re now in the setup, registration ...\n\nThe manufacturing of Lumina Probiotic takes place at a state-of-the-art facility in Palo Alto, California. The facility adheres to the most stringent standards to guarantee the consistency and ... (Date published: Sep 25, 2024)\n\nSince publishing my post expressing safety and efficacy concerns about Lumina Probiotic, the anti-cavity genetically modified probiotic, I've received answers to some of my concerns from Aaron Silverbook, the founder. ... He also has informed me that they are investing significant sums and efforts in their own production facility. He's ... (Date published: May 20, 2024)\n\nLumina Probiotic has said a genetically modified microbe could prevent cavities. Experts, though, have safety concerns ... May 22, 2024. 9 min read. This Start-Up Wants You to Put Custom Bacteria ... (Date published: May 22, 2024)\n\nLumina Probiotic introduces genetically modified bacteria which don't secrete lactic acid. A one-time application of the BCS3-L1 strain displaces existing bacteria. Understand the Science"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Multiple recent sources from November 2024 indicate an early 2025 launch for NVIDIA's RTX 50 series\n2. CES 2025 is mentioned as the earliest candidate for potential launch\n3. Specific rumors point to a February launch for the 5070 and 5070 Ti models\n4. The current RTX 4000 series launched in 2022\n5. The question requires the GPUs to be available for purchase, not just announced\n6. Historical GPU release cycles typically last 1.5-2 years between generations\n7. There's only one month remaining in 2024 as of the current date\n\n\n\n1. Multiple recent sources consistently point to early 2025 launch (Strength: 9/10)\n2. With only one month left in 2024, a surprise December launch would be highly unusual for such a major product line (Strength: 8/10)\n3. The RTX 4000 series is still relatively current, making a rush to release 50 series unnecessary (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Manufacturing and supply chain preparation typically requires several months of lead time (Strength: 7/10)\n\n\n\n1. NVIDIA could surprise competitors with an earlier release (Strength: 3/10)\n2. Holiday season sales potential could motivate a December release (Strength: 2/10)\n3. Competitive pressure from AMD might push for earlier release (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe evidence strongly points toward an early 2025 release. Multiple independent sources from November 2024 consistently indicate this timeline, and with only one month remaining in 2024, a December release would be highly unusual. The logistics of manufacturing, distribution, and retail preparation make it extremely unlikely that NVIDIA could or would want to rush a release in December 2024.\n\nThe current RTX 4000 series is performing well in the market, reducing any pressure for an rushed release. The consistent mention of CES 2025 (which occurs in January) as the earliest possible announcement date further strengthens the case for a 2025 release.\n\nThe \"yes\" arguments are relatively weak and mostly speculative, based on theoretical possibilities rather than concrete evidence or historical patterns.\n\n\n0.05\n\n\nReviewing my initial forecast:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: GPU releases are typically well-telegraphed months in advance, with clear supply chain signals. There's no evidence of such preparation for a 2024 release.\n\n2. The sources are recent (all from November 2024) and multiple independent sources align on the timeline, increasing confidence in their reliability.\n\n3. The market doesn't appear to be in a situation requiring an emergency early release - the RTX 4000 series is still competitive.\n\n4. Even if NVIDIA wanted to release in December 2024, the logistics of manufacturing and distribution make this extremely improbable with only one month remaining.\n\n5. The question requires actual availability for purchase, not just announcement, further reducing the probability of a 2024 release.\n\nThe 0.05 probability seems appropriate - low but not impossible, reflecting the small chance of an unexpected development while acknowledging the strong evidence pointing to 2025.\n\n\n*0.05*", "probability": 0.05, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/thefigmaster/will-nvidia-50-series-release-befor", "market_probability": 0.11085143931476632, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill NVIDIA 50 series release before 2025\n \n**Description:**\nWill NVIDIA release their 50 series chipset before 1st of January 2025. It must be possible to buy.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2025-01-01\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Blackwell and RTX 50-series Release Dates. Of all the unknowns, the release date \u2014 at least for the first Blackwell GPUs \u2014 may be the easiest to pin down, especially now. (Date published: Nov 22, 2024)\n- The release date of RTX 50-series GPUs is still at least a couple of months away, but various rumors and leaks give us a better idea of what to expect. ... 2024. Nvidia is also said to have halted ... (Date published: Nov 14, 2024)\n- Since the RTX 50-series leaks were published, multiple rumors/leaks have pointed toward an early 2025 launch for Nvidia's next-gen GPUs, with CES 2025 being the earliest candidate for a potential ... (Date published: Nov 5, 2024)\n- Nvidia is rumored to launch the RTX 50 series GPUs early next year. ... published 22 November 2024. New year, new GPUs. ... rumors point to a February launch for the 5070 and 5070 Ti, but we\u2019ll ... (Date published: Nov 22, 2024)\n- Nvidia\u2019s RTX 4000 series has been the focal point of the GPU market ever since its 2022 launch - its flagship GPU, the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090, remains the king of all GPUs - often considered ... (Date published: Nov 12, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill NVIDIA 50 series release before 2025\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"NVIDIA 50 series release date rumors 2024\"", "search_results": "Blackwell and RTX 50-series Release Dates. Of all the unknowns, the release date \u2014 at least for the first Blackwell GPUs \u2014 may be the easiest to pin down, especially now. (Date published: Nov 22, 2024)\n\nThe release date of RTX 50-series GPUs is still at least a couple of months away, but various rumors and leaks give us a better idea of what to expect. ... 2024. Nvidia is also said to have halted ... (Date published: Nov 14, 2024)\n\nSince the RTX 50-series leaks were published, multiple rumors/leaks have pointed toward an early 2025 launch for Nvidia's next-gen GPUs, with CES 2025 being the earliest candidate for a potential ... (Date published: Nov 5, 2024)\n\nNvidia is rumored to launch the RTX 50 series GPUs early next year. ... published 22 November 2024. New year, new GPUs. ... rumors point to a February launch for the 5070 and 5070 Ti, but we\u2019ll ... (Date published: Nov 22, 2024)\n\nNvidia\u2019s RTX 4000 series has been the focal point of the GPU market ever since its 2022 launch - its flagship GPU, the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090, remains the king of all GPUs - often considered ... (Date published: Nov 12, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Multiple major cloud providers made large investments in AI startups in 2023:\n - Microsoft: $10B in OpenAI, $1.3B in Inflection\n - Amazon: Up to $4B in Anthropic\n - Alphabet: Up to $2B in Anthropic\n - Nvidia: Multiple investments including Cohere, Inflection, Hugging Face, Mistral\n\n2. \"Round-tripping\" concerns exist where investments may be tied to cloud service purchasing commitments\n\n3. The SEC has shown increased focus on AI-related enforcement in 2024:\n - Charged multiple firms for misleading AI claims\n - Conducted an \"AI sweep\" requesting information from investment advisers\n - Received record number of tips/complaints in FY2024\n - Brought enforcement actions specifically focused on AI disclosures\n\n4. The exact contractual terms between cloud providers and AI startups are not publicly available\n\n5. SEC has demonstrated willingness to pursue relatively small AI-related cases ($400K in penalties for misleading AI statements)\n\n\n\n1. Regulatory challenges may focus on other AI issues (like misleading claims) rather than cloud provider investments (7/10)\n\n2. These investments have legitimate strategic rationale beyond revenue manipulation (6/10)\n\n3. The complex nature of these deals makes proving improper accounting difficult (5/10)\n\n4. Cloud providers have sophisticated legal teams that likely structured deals to avoid clear regulatory issues (4/10)\n\n\n\n1. The SEC has demonstrated increased scrutiny of AI-related matters in 2024, suggesting this is a priority area (8/10)\n\n2. The scale of these investments ($10B+) makes them natural targets for regulatory attention (7/10)\n\n3. Public discussion of \"round-tripping\" concerns by prominent figures like Bill Gurley increases pressure for regulatory review (6/10)\n\n4. The SEC's record number of tips/complaints increases chances someone reports concerns about these arrangements (5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here is between the SEC's demonstrated willingness to pursue AI-related enforcement and the specific complexity of cloud provider investments. The SEC has shown it will act on AI issues, but mostly on clearer violations like misleading statements.\n\nThese investments exist in a grey area where proving improper accounting would be challenging. However, the massive scale of these deals and their potential impact on market competition makes them natural targets for regulatory attention.\n\nThe prediction requires only that regulators \"challenge\" these investments, not successfully prove wrongdoing. Given the SEC's focus on AI and the controversial nature of these arrangements, some form of regulatory scrutiny seems likely.\n\n\n0.75\n\n\nExamining my initial forecast:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: The SEC investigates only a small fraction of potential securities issues, suggesting a lower baseline probability.\n\n2. However, several factors justify a relatively high probability:\n- Pattern of increasing SEC focus on AI throughout 2024\n- Scale and visibility of these investments\n- Clear regulatory mandate around accounting practices\n- Only requires challenge/investigation, not successful enforcement\n\n3. The prediction timeframe (through end of 2024) provides substantial time for regulatory action to emerge.\n\n4. The prediction is from Forbes/Rob Toews, who likely has industry connections informing this forecast.\n\nMy initial probability appears reasonable given these factors. While 0.75 represents strong confidence, the demonstrated regulatory focus on AI and the low bar for what constitutes a \"challenge\" supports this level.\n\n\n*0.75*", "probability": 0.75, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/HenriThunberg/7-strategic-investments-from-cloud", "market_probability": 0.8877921455232582, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \n7) Strategic investments from cloud providers into AI startups [...] will be challenged by regulators.\n \n**Description:**\nFull title from the article: \"7. Strategic investments from cloud providers into AI startups\u2014and the associated accounting implications\u2014will be challenged by regulators.\"\n\nAll these predictions are taken from Forbes/Rob Toews' \"10 AI Predictions For 2024\".\nFor the 2023 predictions you can find them here, and their resolution here.\nYou can find all the markets under the tag [2024 Forbes AI predictions].\n\n\nI will resolve to whatever Forbes/Rob Toews say in their resolution article for 2024's predictions.\n\nI might bet in this market, as I have no power over the resolution.\n\n\n\nDescription of this prediction from the article:\nA tidal wave of investment capital has flowed from large technology companies into AI startups this year.\n\nMicrosoft invested $10 billion into OpenAI in January and then led a $1.3 billion funding round in Inflection in June. This fall, Amazon announced that it would invest up to $4 billion into Anthropic. Not to be outdone, Alphabet announced weeks later that it would invest up to $2 billion into Anthropic. Nvidia, meanwhile, has been perhaps the most prolific AI investor in the world this year, plowing money into dozens of AI startups that use its GPUs including Cohere, Inflection, Hugging Face, Mistral, CoreWeave, Inceptive, AI21 Labs and Imbue.\n\nIt is not hard to see that the motivation for making these investments is, at least in part, to secure these high-growth AI startups as long-term compute customers.\n\nSuch investments can implicate an important gray area in accounting rules. This may sound like an esoteric topic\u2014but it will have massive implications for the competitive landscape in AI going forward.\n\nSay a cloud vendor invests $100 million into an AI startup based on a guarantee that the startup will turn around and spend that $100 million on the cloud vendor\u2019s services. Conceptually, this is not true arms-length revenue for the cloud vendor; the vendor is, in effect, using the investment to artificially transform its own balance sheet cash into revenue.\n\nThese types of deals\u2014often referred to as \u201cround-tripping\u201d (since the money goes out and comes right back in)\u2014have raised eyebrows this year among Silicon Valley leaders like VC Bill Gurley.\n\nThe devil is in the details. Not all of the deals mentioned above necessarily represent true instances of round-tripping. It matters, for instance, whether an investment comes with an explicit obligation for the startup to spend the capital on the investor\u2019s products, or simply encourages broad strategic collaboration between the two organizations. The contracts between Microsoft and OpenAI, or between Amazon and Anthropic, are not publicly available, so we cannot say for sure how they are structured.\n\nBut at least in some cases, cloud providers may well be recognizing revenue via these investments that they should not be.\n\nThese deals have proceeded with little to no regulatory scrutiny to this point. This will change in 2024. Expect the SEC to take a much harder look at round-tripping in AI investments next year\u2014and expect the number and size of such deals to drop dramatically as a result.\n\nGiven that cloud providers have been one of the largest sources of capital fueling the generative AI boom to date, this could have a material impact on the overall AI fundraising environment in 2024.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced settled charges against two investment advisers, Delphia (USA) Inc. and Global Predictions Inc., for making false and misleading statements about their purported use of artificial intelligence (AI). The firms agreed to settle the SEC\u2019s charges and pay $400,000 in total civil penalties. (Date published: Mar 18, 2024)\n- In fiscal year 2024, the SEC distributed $345 million to harmed investors, marking more than $2.7 billion returned to investors since the start of fiscal year 2021. The SEC also received 45,130 tips, complaints, and referrals in fiscal year 2024, the most ever received in one year, including more than 24,000 whistleblower tips, more than 14,000 ... (Date published: Nov 22, 2024)\n- The SEC kicked off its fiscal year by bringing enforcement actions focused on AI and cyber disclosures. As discussed in more detail below: These actions again show SEC Enforcement prioritizing \u201chot button\u201d issues like AI and cyber, highlighting, for example, a company\u2019s statements about its use of AI in what otherwise appeared to be a fairly garden-variety securities fraud case. (Date published: Nov 25, 2024)\n- The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Ilit Raz, CEO and founder of the now-shuttered artificial intelligence recruitment startup Joonko, with defrauding investors of at least $21 million by making false and misleading statements about the quantity and quality of Joonko\u2019s customers, the number of candidates on its platform, and the company\u2019s revenue. (Date published: Jun 11, 2024)\n- The SEC ordered Delphia and Global Predictions to pay civil penalties of $225,000 and $175,000, respectively. The interest of the SEC and its staff in AI, or \u201cpredictive data analytics,\u201d has been growing for some time. In late 2023, the Commission began an AI sweep, requesting information from various investment advisers on AI-related topics. (Date published: Apr 15, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \n7) Strategic investments from cloud providers into AI startups [...] will be challenged by regulators.\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"SEC investigation AI startup investment round-tripping 2024\"", "search_results": "The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced settled charges against two investment advisers, Delphia (USA) Inc. and Global Predictions Inc., for making false and misleading statements about their purported use of artificial intelligence (AI). The firms agreed to settle the SEC\u2019s charges and pay $400,000 in total civil penalties. (Date published: Mar 18, 2024)\n\nIn fiscal year 2024, the SEC distributed $345 million to harmed investors, marking more than $2.7 billion returned to investors since the start of fiscal year 2021. The SEC also received 45,130 tips, complaints, and referrals in fiscal year 2024, the most ever received in one year, including more than 24,000 whistleblower tips, more than 14,000 ... (Date published: Nov 22, 2024)\n\nThe SEC kicked off its fiscal year by bringing enforcement actions focused on AI and cyber disclosures. As discussed in more detail below: These actions again show SEC Enforcement prioritizing \u201chot button\u201d issues like AI and cyber, highlighting, for example, a company\u2019s statements about its use of AI in what otherwise appeared to be a fairly garden-variety securities fraud case. (Date published: Nov 25, 2024)\n\nThe Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Ilit Raz, CEO and founder of the now-shuttered artificial intelligence recruitment startup Joonko, with defrauding investors of at least $21 million by making false and misleading statements about the quantity and quality of Joonko\u2019s customers, the number of candidates on its platform, and the company\u2019s revenue. (Date published: Jun 11, 2024)\n\nThe SEC ordered Delphia and Global Predictions to pay civil penalties of $225,000 and $175,000, respectively. The interest of the SEC and its staff in AI, or \u201cpredictive data analytics,\u201d has been growing for some time. In late 2023, the Commission began an AI sweep, requesting information from various investment advisers on AI-related topics. (Date published: Apr 15, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Logan Paul announced CryptoZoo in 2021, which never materialized despite claims of significant investment\n2. Paul claimed to have spent \"about one million\" dollars on development with a \"massive team\"\n3. Paul is currently facing a class action lawsuit regarding CryptoZoo\n4. In January 2024, Paul began buying back NFTs from affected fans\n5. As of November 2024, Paul continues to face questions about his cryptocurrency dealings\n6. In Paul's court filing against Coffeezilla, he acknowledged fraud in CryptoZoo but denied personal responsibility\n7. Resolution criteria requires Paul to publicly admit to fraud regarding CryptoZoo\n\n\n\n1. Legal liability - Admitting to fraud could expose Paul to additional legal consequences (8/10)\n2. Brand protection - Public admission of fraud would severely damage his reputation and business interests (7/10)\n3. Already initiated remediation - By buying back NFTs, Paul may feel he's addressed the issue without needing to admit fraud (6/10)\n4. Legal strategy - His lawyers would likely advise against any public admission of fraud (8/10)\n5. Past behavior - Paul has historically deflected responsibility in controversies (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Legal pressure - Ongoing lawsuit might force some form of public statement (6/10)\n2. Previous partial admission - Has already acknowledged fraud occurred in court filing, though denied responsibility (5/10)\n3. PR strategy - Might choose to get ahead of the story with a controlled admission (4/10)\n4. Public pressure - Continuing media coverage and fan disappointment could push towards admission (3/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here is the tension between legal/financial incentives and public pressure. The resolution criteria specifically requires a public admission of fraud, which is a high bar given the legal implications. While Paul has shown some willingness to address the situation through NFT buybacks, this actually reduces the likelihood of an admission as it provides an alternative way to manage the fallout.\n\nThe existence of ongoing legal proceedings makes this particularly unlikely, as any admission could be used against him in court. His previous court filing acknowledging fraud but denying responsibility suggests his legal strategy is to distance himself rather than accept culpability.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nLooking at this from a broader perspective:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: Public figures rarely directly admit to fraud, even when evidence is strong. They typically opt for carefully worded apologies or partial acknowledgments.\n\n2. The timeframe is relatively short (one month), which reduces the probability of major strategy changes or forced admissions.\n\n3. Given that Paul has already initiated buybacks and made partial statements in court, he has less incentive to make additional admissions.\n\n4. The resolution criteria requiring a public admission of fraud (not just acknowledgment of problems) is a stringent requirement.\n\nI notice my initial forecast may actually be too high given these factors, particularly the short timeframe and stringent criteria. The base rate for public fraud admissions by high-profile figures with active legal cases is likely below 10%.\n\n\n*0.08*", "probability": 0.08, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/AmmonLam/will-logan-paul-admits-to-fraud-reg", "market_probability": 0.05000000000000006, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Logan Paul admits to fraud regarding Cryptozoo?\n \n**Description:**\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=386p68_lDHA&t=1s\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvzyDg40-yw\n\n\nResolve to Yes if Logan Paul publicly admits to fraud regarding Cryptozoo\nResolve to No if Logan Paul did not publicly admits to fraud regarding Cryptozoo\n\n*Even if there's substantial evidence that Logan Paul commited fraud regarding Cryptozoo, if Logan Paul never admitted it, this market still resolves to no\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Jonathan (2024-11-21): What is the specific resolution criteria of this market? In Paul\u2019s court filing against Coffeezilla he stated there was fraud in Cryptozoo but said it wasn\u2019t his fault. Does he just have to say that Cryptozoo was fraudulent or does he also have to take accountability for the fraud?\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Rueben Tauk - a 21-year-old from north-east England - was among the Logan Paul fans who bought into CryptoZoo. \u201cI was really excited to be part of something that he was doing.\u201d (Date published: Nov 20, 2024)\n- Logan Paul, the massively popular social media personality, is facing fresh questions over his cryptocurrency dealings amid ongoing concerns he may have profited from misleading fans. (Date published: Nov 20, 2024)\n- Logan Paul has begun the process of buying back NFTs from fans who lost money in his failed cryptocurrency game. The YouTube star announced the game CryptoZoo in 2021 but it never materialised ... (Date published: Jan 5, 2024)\n- Paul, who has more than 23 million YouTube subscribers, said he had spent \"probably about one million\" dollars on developing CryptoZoo, and had a \"massive team behind the project\". The CryptoZoo ... (Date published: Jan 9, 2023)\n- Logan Paul is being sued in a class action about the CryptoZoo NFT disaster. Today, he filed an Answer & Cross-Claim in that same case (which he's calling \"a lawsuit in federal court in Texas to ... (Date published: Jan 4, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Logan Paul admits to fraud regarding Cryptozoo?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Logan Paul Cryptozoo fraud admission recent update", "search_results": "Rueben Tauk - a 21-year-old from north-east England - was among the Logan Paul fans who bought into CryptoZoo. \u201cI was really excited to be part of something that he was doing.\u201d (Date published: Nov 20, 2024)\n\nLogan Paul, the massively popular social media personality, is facing fresh questions over his cryptocurrency dealings amid ongoing concerns he may have profited from misleading fans. (Date published: Nov 20, 2024)\n\nLogan Paul has begun the process of buying back NFTs from fans who lost money in his failed cryptocurrency game. The YouTube star announced the game CryptoZoo in 2021 but it never materialised ... (Date published: Jan 5, 2024)\n\nPaul, who has more than 23 million YouTube subscribers, said he had spent \"probably about one million\" dollars on developing CryptoZoo, and had a \"massive team behind the project\". The CryptoZoo ... (Date published: Jan 9, 2023)\n\nLogan Paul is being sued in a class action about the CryptoZoo NFT disaster. Today, he filed an Answer & Cross-Claim in that same case (which he's calling \"a lawsuit in federal court in Texas to ... (Date published: Jan 4, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Netanyahu is scheduled to testify in his corruption trial on December 2, 2024\n2. The court rejected his recent request to delay testimony despite the ongoing war\n3. He faces multiple corruption charges in Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000\n4. His legal team suffered setbacks in January 2024 with the departure of key attorney Boaz Ben Tzur\n5. Israel is currently at war in Gaza and facing tensions with Lebanon\n6. Netanyahu has consistently denied wrongdoing and fought against recusal requests\n7. His testimony will occur very close to the forecast resolution date (Dec 31, 2024)\n8. Historically, Israeli PMs have resigned under legal pressure (e.g., Olmert in 2008)\n\n\n\n1. Netanyahu has shown extraordinary political survival skills throughout his career, weathering multiple crises (Strength: 8/10)\n2. During wartime, leadership changes are typically avoided for stability reasons (Strength: 9/10)\n3. Resigning would expose him to immediate legal consequences without the protections of office (Strength: 7/10)\n4. He maintains significant support from his base who view the charges as politically motivated (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\n1. The timing of his testimony (Dec 2) could reveal damaging information that creates immediate pressure to resign (Strength: 5/10)\n2. Legal setbacks and mounting pressure from the corruption trial may become untenable (Strength: 4/10)\n3. War-related criticism and public dissatisfaction could combine with legal troubles to force his hand (Strength: 3/10)\n\n\n\nThe key considerations here interlock in important ways:\n1. The timing is extremely tight - even if damaging testimony occurs on Dec 2, the institutional and political processes that would lead to resignation would need to play out very quickly\n2. The war context cuts both ways - while it typically preserves leadership stability, catastrophic revelations during testimony could make his position untenable\n3. Netanyahu has extremely strong incentives to remain in office for legal protection\n4. The combination of multiple pressures (war criticism, legal troubles) might normally increase resignation chances, but the compressed timeframe makes this less relevant\n\nThe war situation likely dominates other factors here. Even if his testimony goes poorly, there would need to be an extraordinary catalyst to overcome both the stabilizing effect of wartime leadership and his strong personal incentives to remain in office.\n\n\n0.08\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n- Base rates for leadership changes during active conflicts are very low\n- Previous Israeli PM resignations under legal pressure occurred during peacetime\n- The time window is extremely narrow (30 days) which should reduce the probability\n- Netanyahu has historically shown high resistance to political pressure\n- The stakes for him personally (legal exposure) are extremely high\n- The compressed schedule leaves little room for the typical political maneuvering that precedes resignations\n\nGiven these factors, particularly the combination of wartime stability effects and the extremely short timeframe, my initial estimate may even be too high. The scenario requires multiple unlikely events to occur in sequence within a very tight window.\n\n\n*0.05*", "probability": 0.05, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/galtopazweiss/will-benjamin-netnyahu-resigne-from", "market_probability": 0.13317121862176068, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Benjamin Netnyahu resign from office by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nResign means stepping down voluntarily from his role as Prime Minister of Israel,1 and not as a result of his government disbanding. \n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2025-01-01\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Matt (2023-12-23): Bibi can\u2019t resign. He\u2019s staying in power to avoid his \\ncorruption charges\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will begin his testimony in his ongoing corruption trial on December 2, 2024, the Jerusalem District Court decided in a ruling on Tuesday. (Date published: Jul 9, 2024)\n- In addition, Netanyahu\u2019s legal team took a major hit in January 2024, when Boaz Ben Tzur, who had represented him in Case 4000 \u2013 and is considered one of the elders of the entire legal ...\n- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issues a response to a petition requesting that he be ordered to recuse himself from office while testifying in his criminal trial later this month.\n- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will begin his testimony in his ongoing corruption trial on December 2, 2024, the Jerusalem District Court says in a ruling. (Date published: Jul 9, 2024)\n- An Israeli court on Wednesday rejected a new request by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to delay testifying at his corruption trial, ruling that he must take the stand next month even as the country is at war in Gaza and Lebanon. (Date published: Nov 13, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Benjamin Netnyahu resign from office by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Netanyahu corruption trial progress 2024\"", "search_results": "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will begin his testimony in his ongoing corruption trial on December 2, 2024, the Jerusalem District Court decided in a ruling on Tuesday. (Date published: Jul 9, 2024)\n\nIn addition, Netanyahu\u2019s legal team took a major hit in January 2024, when Boaz Ben Tzur, who had represented him in Case 4000 \u2013 and is considered one of the elders of the entire legal ...\n\nPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issues a response to a petition requesting that he be ordered to recuse himself from office while testifying in his criminal trial later this month.\n\nPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will begin his testimony in his ongoing corruption trial on December 2, 2024, the Jerusalem District Court says in a ruling. (Date published: Jul 9, 2024)\n\nAn Israeli court on Wednesday rejected a new request by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to delay testifying at his corruption trial, ruling that he must take the stand next month even as the country is at war in Gaza and Lebanon. (Date published: Nov 13, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Zelenskyy is actively engaged in diplomatic efforts to end the war, as shown by recent statements\n2. Trump won the Republican nomination and is likely to take office in 2024\n3. Zelenskyy has indicated openness to diplomatic solutions while maintaining Ukraine's territorial integrity\n4. The war has been ongoing since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022\n5. Zelenskyy has survived multiple reported assassination attempts since 2022\n6. Historical precedent shows heads of state in active war zones face elevated risks\n7. Russia has demonstrated capability and willingness to conduct targeted assassinations abroad\n8. Ukraine maintains significant security measures to protect Zelenskyy\n9. The war appears to be entering a more diplomatic phase with potential peace negotiations\n\n\n\n1. Active war zone creates inherent physical risks (8/10)\n2. Russian intelligence services have demonstrated capacity for targeted assassinations (7/10)\n3. Potential internal political instability as war fatigue increases (5/10)\n4. Changing US administration could create period of uncertainty and vulnerability (4/10)\n5. Multiple previous assassination attempts indicate ongoing threat (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Zelenskyy has already survived numerous assassination attempts, showing effective security (8/10)\n2. Movement toward diplomatic solutions reduces physical risk exposure (7/10)\n3. Ukrainian intelligence and Western support provide strong security infrastructure (8/10)\n4. High-profile status means attempts on his life would likely be detected in advance (6/10)\n5. Historical survival rate for heads of state is very high, even in conflict zones (7/10)\n\n\n\nThe key mechanisms at play are:\n1. Physical security vs assassination risk\n2. Diplomatic vs military phase of conflict\n3. Changes in international support structure\n\nThe situation appears to be transitioning from active military conflict to diplomatic negotiations, which should reduce physical exposure. While Russian capabilities remain concerning, Zelenskyy's security apparatus has proven highly effective.\n\nThe base rate for head of state survival in modern conflicts is quite high, and Zelenskyy has already demonstrated resilience through the most dangerous phase of the conflict.\n\nPolitical instability risks exist but seem secondary to physical security concerns.\n\n\n0.88\n\n\nExamining this forecast against historical precedents:\n- Modern heads of state have very high survival rates even in conflict zones\n- Security technology and international support have significantly reduced assassination risks\n- The diplomatic turn reduces exposure compared to earlier war phases\n\nHowever, I need to account for:\n- The specific capabilities of Russian intelligence services\n- The duration of exposure (full year)\n- Potential changes in international support structure\n\nThe base rate for head of state survival in any given year is extremely high (>99%). While this situation has specific risk factors, the demonstrated effectiveness of security measures and movement toward diplomacy suggests the deviation from base rate shouldn't be too extreme.\n\nMy tentative probability may be slightly underconfident given the historical precedents and proven security effectiveness.\n\n\n*0.92*", "probability": 0.92, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/BTE/will-volodymyr-zelenskyy-survive-20", "market_probability": 0.9533040039463248, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Volodymyr Zelenskyy survive 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Zelenskyy said in an interview broadcast on Friday that offering Ukraine NATO membership while allowing Russia to keep for the moment territory it had captured could be a solution to end the ...\n- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday said Russia\u2019s war in Ukraine will end \u201cfaster\u201d when Donald Trump takes over as US president. Speaking in a radio interview with Ukrainian ... (Date published: Nov 16, 2024)\n- As Ukraine and Russia prepare for Donald Trump's return to the White House next year, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday said Russia's war against his country must end by ... (Date published: Nov 16, 2024)\n- Zelenskyy emphasised that the solution to end the more than two years of war since Russia\u2019s full-scale invasion in 2022 was not a frozen conflict and \u201cnot a trade-in Ukraine\u2019s territory or ... (Date published: Oct 16, 2024)\n- KYIV \u2014 President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said Ukraine must do all it can to ensure the war with Russia ends next year through diplomacy, commenting at a decisive moment after Donald Trump\u2019s U ... (Date published: Nov 16, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Volodymyr Zelenskyy survive 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Volodymyr Zelenskyy security situation Russia Ukraine war 2024\"", "search_results": "Zelenskyy said in an interview broadcast on Friday that offering Ukraine NATO membership while allowing Russia to keep for the moment territory it had captured could be a solution to end the ...\n\nUkrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday said Russia\u2019s war in Ukraine will end \u201cfaster\u201d when Donald Trump takes over as US president. Speaking in a radio interview with Ukrainian ... (Date published: Nov 16, 2024)\n\nAs Ukraine and Russia prepare for Donald Trump's return to the White House next year, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday said Russia's war against his country must end by ... (Date published: Nov 16, 2024)\n\nZelenskyy emphasised that the solution to end the more than two years of war since Russia\u2019s full-scale invasion in 2022 was not a frozen conflict and \u201cnot a trade-in Ukraine\u2019s territory or ... (Date published: Oct 16, 2024)\n\nKYIV \u2014 President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said Ukraine must do all it can to ensure the war with Russia ends next year through diplomacy, commenting at a decisive moment after Donald Trump\u2019s U ... (Date published: Nov 16, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Threads launched in summer 2023 with over 100M initial sign-ups\n2. As of Aug 2024, Threads had 130M monthly active users vs X's 550M\n3. In Feb 2024, Threads had 1.6M daily active users in US alone\n4. Users were spending average of 3 minutes per day on Threads\n5. Threads is projected to generate $4.5B revenue in 2024\n6. Threads shows consistent DAU growth since Nov 2023\n7. While X/Twitter has higher DAU, it's on downward trajectory while Threads is growing\n8. This is a bet about Threads NOT overtaking X in DAU by 2025\n9. Market resolves Dec 31, 2024\n10. Threads is built on Instagram's infrastructure/tech\n\n\n\n1. X/Twitter showing consistent decline while Threads showing growth (8/10)\n2. Meta has massive resources and Instagram integration advantage (7/10)\n3. X's controversial management under Musk causing user exodus (6/10)\n4. Meta's ability to cross-promote to billions of Instagram users (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Massive gap to close - X has significantly higher DAU currently (9/10)\n2. Limited time remaining until 2025 for overtaking (8/10)\n3. Low engagement metrics for Threads (3 min/day) suggest limited stickiness (6/10)\n4. Initial Threads hype didn't translate to sustained usage (7/10)\n5. X remains dominant for real-time news/discussion despite issues (6/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration is whether Threads can close a massive DAU gap in a relatively short timeframe. While Threads shows promising growth and X faces challenges, the combination of:\n- Large existing gap (X has ~4x monthly active users)\n- Short timeframe (about 1 year remaining)\n- Network effects favoring incumbent\n- Previous pattern of rapid initial adoption followed by decline\n\nsuggests overtaking within this timeframe is unlikely despite positive trajectory. The Instagram integration and Meta's resources are significant advantages, but may not be enough to overcome these factors in the specified timeline.\n\nMust also consider that while news focuses on X's problems, it maintains significant cultural relevance and user base despite issues.\n\n\n0.75\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n- Base rate: Social media platform overtakes don't happen quickly - Facebook took years to overtake MySpace\n- The bet specifically requires NOT overtaking, so any scenario short of complete overtaking favors YES\n- Sources may overemphasize negative X news due to Musk controversy\n- While Threads growth is promising, the engagement metrics suggest it's not yet a true X replacement for most users\n- The timeline is particularly important - this might be more likely over 2-3 years, but 2025 is very soon\n\nThe combination of short timeline and high barrier (must fully overtake, not just grow significantly) suggests my initial estimate was slightly low. Given the conjunctive nature of requirements for NO (both growth AND timeline), probability should be higher.\n\n\n*0.82*", "probability": 0.82, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Joshua/will-marcusabramovitch-win-the-1009", "market_probability": 0.9477835340012346, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill @MarcusAbramovitch win the $900-$100 bet vs @RobertCousineau about Threads not overtaking X/Twitter in DAU by 2025?\n \n**Description:**\nResolves based on the real money bet between Marcus and Robert from episode 4 of Manifold LIve, based on this market:\n\n(https://manifold.markets/embed/KevinRoose18ac/will-threads-overtake-x-in-daily-ac)Marcus is betting the market will resolve no, Robert is betting it will resolve yes. So this market should be the inverse of the original market.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Isaac King (2023-12-26): Title is backwards.\n- Joshua (2023-12-26): Oh good catch, thank you\n- ClubmasterTransparent (2023-12-26): Is it correct now? I am trying to bet NO on \"Threads does not overtake Twitter.\" Also I missed the show but I'm assuming if Twitter is kaput and Threads isn't then Threads overtakes Twitter, if they're both kaput then Threads does not overtake. \n- Joshua (2023-12-26): This is an inverse of the original market. Bet yes if you think X stays ahead of Threads, bet no if you think Threads overtakes twitter.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- With the apparent self-implosion at Twitter, Instagram-parent Meta launched into the microblogging scene with Threads. Aimed at users and advertisers fed up with Twitter\u2019s handling following the Musk takeover, it made a large splash in the first week with over 100 million sign-ups. This was helped along by Twitter announcing it had temporarily limited the amount of tweets users could view in ... (Date published: Nov 19, 2024)\n- This month, analytics firm Similarweb found that while Twitter still has a higher daily monthly active user count, it\u2019s on a downward trajectory, and Threads is on its way up. And as of ... (Date published: Jul 5, 2024)\n- Despite initial excitement, daily active users dropped to 33 million, with users spending an average of just 3 minutes per day on the app. Threads is projected to generate $4.5 billion in revenue in 2024. While it gained users rapidly, Threads still trails Twitter/X in terms of active users and engagement. (Date published: Sep 24, 2024)\n- In February 2024, Threads had 1.6 million daily active users in the US alone, Sensor Data shows. Sources: Business Insider, NBC News. Threads User Count vs X (Twitter) According to recent company announcements, Threads has 130 million monthly active users vs. 550 million accessing X (Twitter) on a monthly basis. (Date published: Aug 6, 2024)\n- Meta's newest social-media app, launched last summer on the back of Instagram's tech, has seen its daily active users grow consistently since November, per estimates from Apptopia. (Date published: Apr 23, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill @MarcusAbramovitch win the $900-$100 bet vs @RobertCousineau about Threads not overtaking X/Twitter in DAU by 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Threads vs Twitter daily active users 2024 growth\"", "search_results": "With the apparent self-implosion at Twitter, Instagram-parent Meta launched into the microblogging scene with Threads. Aimed at users and advertisers fed up with Twitter\u2019s handling following the Musk takeover, it made a large splash in the first week with over 100 million sign-ups. This was helped along by Twitter announcing it had temporarily limited the amount of tweets users could view in ... (Date published: Nov 19, 2024)\n\nThis month, analytics firm Similarweb found that while Twitter still has a higher daily monthly active user count, it\u2019s on a downward trajectory, and Threads is on its way up. And as of ... (Date published: Jul 5, 2024)\n\nDespite initial excitement, daily active users dropped to 33 million, with users spending an average of just 3 minutes per day on the app. Threads is projected to generate $4.5 billion in revenue in 2024. While it gained users rapidly, Threads still trails Twitter/X in terms of active users and engagement. (Date published: Sep 24, 2024)\n\nIn February 2024, Threads had 1.6 million daily active users in the US alone, Sensor Data shows. Sources: Business Insider, NBC News. Threads User Count vs X (Twitter) According to recent company announcements, Threads has 130 million monthly active users vs. 550 million accessing X (Twitter) on a monthly basis. (Date published: Aug 6, 2024)\n\nMeta's newest social-media app, launched last summer on the back of Instagram's tech, has seen its daily active users grow consistently since November, per estimates from Apptopia. (Date published: Apr 23, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The deadline is December 31, 2024 (about 1 month from now)\n2. Need 5 users to provide credible evidence\n3. Must be paid/profitable work traditionally done sitting indoors\n4. Programming is given as the definitive example\n5. Must demonstrate >1 month of sustainable non-sitting work\n6. Can't be exhausting or require excessive breaks\n7. Users must use real names or prove non-alt account status\n8. Treadmill desks exist and are used by some workers\n9. Search results show multiple examples of people attempting/using treadmill desks\n10. Users report needing practice to code while walking\n11. Most treadmill desk users mention alternating between walking and other positions\n12. Walking speed needs to be relatively slow for sustained work\n\n\n\n1. Very short timeframe remaining (1 month) to get 5 verified users (8/10)\n2. Need for verification and anti-alt procedures adds friction to submission (7/10)\n3. Sustained non-sitting work is physically demanding and most users report needing breaks/alternating positions (6/10)\n4. The requirement for >1 month evidence means new adopters can't qualify before deadline (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Treadmill desks are an established technology with documented users (6/10)\n2. Multiple search results suggest this is already happening, just needs documentation (5/10)\n3. The bar for \"credible evidence\" seems reasonable and achievable (4/10)\n4. Can take some breaks as long as they're comparable to normal sitting breaks (3/10)\n\n\n\nLooking at the mechanisms:\n1. The time constraint is severe - only existing practitioners could qualify\n2. Even if more than 5 eligible people exist, they need to:\n - Learn about this market\n - Be willing to provide evidence\n - Complete verification if pseudo-anonymous\n3. The conjunction of requirements makes this challenging:\n - Must be paid work\n - Must be traditionally seated work\n - Must be sustainable without excessive breaks\n - Must have >1 month experience\n4. The search results suggest there are people doing this, but many alternate between positions which might disqualify them\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n1. The base rate for workplace behavior changes is low\n2. One month is an extremely short time to coordinate 5 people meeting specific criteria\n3. Even if suitable candidates exist, the discovery and verification process is unlikely to complete in time\n4. The search results show this is possible, but most examples mention alternating positions\n5. The conjunction of requirements (paid work + traditionally seated + sustainable + >1 month + verification) makes this significantly harder\n6. The time constraint is particularly binding because:\n - Can't count new adopters\n - Verification process takes time\n - Holiday season may reduce participation\n\nMy initial estimate of 0.15 seems roughly appropriate. The extremely short timeframe combined with the need for pre-existing practitioners who must discover the market and complete verification makes this unlikely, though not impossible.\n\n\n*0.15*", "probability": 0.15, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/singer/will-5-users-post-credible-evidence", "market_probability": 0.8255722691187198, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill 5 users post credible evidence of not sitting while working before 2025?\n \n**Description:**\nResolution criteria (provisional):\n\nIf 5 or more users post credible evidence of themselves not sitting while doing work this question resolves YES.\n\nIt's not necessary for the non-sitting method of working to be the user's only way of doing work, but it must be the case that it could be so without causing discomfort or physical exhaustion. By \"sitting\" I include any recumbent or horizontal posture.\n\nFurther restrictions and requirements:\n\nThe work has to be paid work or somehow profitable, not just a hobby.\n\nThe work has to be something that is done traditionally indoors while seated. Programming is the definitive example.\n\nThe user must provide credible evidence that they've been doing their non-sitting method of working for longer than 1 month. Credible evidence is being able to convince me you're actually doing it (I won't be betting in this market).\n\nThe user must be able to maintain their non-sitting method of work without needing to take breaks from excessive discomfort or physical exhaustion. They may take some breaks from their non-sitting posture to e.g. sit, but only in the same way that one might take a break from sitting to e.g. stand or walk around.\n\nThere's also restrictions on the users who are eligible:\n\nIf you are posting under your real name, you are automatically eligible.\n\nIf you are pseudo-anonymous (like my account) the account cannot be an alt account. Be prepared to undergo procedures to demonstrate the non-altness of your account. This may include you making a market like @/singer/am-i-an-alt-account \n\nSee also:\n\n@/singer/will-5-users-post-credible-evidence-2343a06fea98 \n\n@/singer/will-90-of-programmers-sit-while-wo \n\n@/singer/will-keyboards-be-used-to-make-most \n\nI will not bet in this market.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Ludwig Bald (2024-02-08): Not sure there is a non-sitting way to work that doesn't require you to take breaks for physical reasons. I don't think anyone stands or walks for such a long time.\\nExcept maybe astronauts. They work a lot and never sit!\n- singer (2024-02-08): \\nStanding in place is infeasible for extended periods. But my impression is that it's not that hard to pace around slowly on a level surface \"indefinitely\" in this sense. I'll make the criteria more specific.\\nEdit: here is the updated portion\\nThe user must be able to maintain their non-sitting method of work without needing to take breaks from excessive discomfort or physical exhaustion. They may take some breaks from their non-sitting posture to e.g. sit, but only in the same way that one might take a break from sitting to e.g. stand or walk around.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- I've got a treadmill desk and have found that as long as my walking speed is relatively slow, it doesn't make typing or using the mouse particularly difficult. (At least not once I got used to it.) Haven't used it much in the last few years, though, partly because something went wonky and it got kinda noisy.\n- I have a treadmill with no handlebars under my adjustable standing desk. I\u2019m still working on being able to code and walk, I end up stopping when I\u2019m thinking about something too hard, but I\u2019ve been getting better at being able to do it and have actually been coding while walking more lately.\n- Walking once or twice on the treadmill while working won't have much of a benefit, and doing one marathon day of 8 hours of walking won't help you much in the long run either. The most effective way to get results is to make a habit to walk every single day.\n- Treadmill desk! Although if you can't get one of those at home, laptop to the gym is the way to go. ... I've wanted to reduce sitting from programming for a while though. Walking is a lot healthier. ... but there are also times where the work just needs to be done. I want something for the latter.\n- But there are also other alternatives. One interesting alternative I was considering was the Egofit Walker Pro Treadmill Base for its inclined walking feature and reduced size. I use it for about 2-3 hours per day. Usually, I get a 30-minute walking session. After that, I switch to using a kneeling chair or just standing at my desk without walking. (Date published: Nov 11, 2021)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill 5 users post credible evidence of not sitting while working before 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"programmers working while walking treadmill desk ergonomics\"", "search_results": "I've got a treadmill desk and have found that as long as my walking speed is relatively slow, it doesn't make typing or using the mouse particularly difficult. (At least not once I got used to it.) Haven't used it much in the last few years, though, partly because something went wonky and it got kinda noisy.\n\nI have a treadmill with no handlebars under my adjustable standing desk. I\u2019m still working on being able to code and walk, I end up stopping when I\u2019m thinking about something too hard, but I\u2019ve been getting better at being able to do it and have actually been coding while walking more lately.\n\nWalking once or twice on the treadmill while working won't have much of a benefit, and doing one marathon day of 8 hours of walking won't help you much in the long run either. The most effective way to get results is to make a habit to walk every single day.\n\nTreadmill desk! Although if you can't get one of those at home, laptop to the gym is the way to go. ... I've wanted to reduce sitting from programming for a while though. Walking is a lot healthier. ... but there are also times where the work just needs to be done. I want something for the latter.\n\nBut there are also other alternatives. One interesting alternative I was considering was the Egofit Walker Pro Treadmill Base for its inclined walking feature and reduced size. I use it for about 2-3 hours per day. Usually, I get a 30-minute walking session. After that, I switch to using a kneeling chair or just standing at my desk without walking. (Date published: Nov 11, 2021)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. According to recent RBA forecasts, the cash rate is expected to have peaked in the current cycle\n2. Market pricing implies little chance of further increases\n3. Rate cuts are anticipated to begin around mid-2025\n4. Financial markets are pricing in two quarter-point reductions in 2024, with the first move expected in August\n5. Current cash rate is 4.35%\n6. Inflation remains above target and is described as \"persistent\"\n7. Growth in Australia's major trading partners is expected to be moderate, around 3.3% in 2024\n8. The RBA's stance is focused on supporting inflation returning to target\n\n\n\n1. Market consensus and RBA forecasts strongly indicate rates have peaked (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Financial markets are already pricing in rate cuts rather than hikes for 2024 (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Global economic conditions suggest moderating growth, which typically doesn't support rate hikes (Strength: 6/10)\n4. RBA's own forecasts assume rates have peaked and will remain stable until mid-2024 before declining (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Inflation remains persistent and above target, which could require further tightening (Strength: 5/10)\n2. Unexpected economic shocks or inflationary pressures could force the RBA's hand (Strength: 3/10)\n3. Global geopolitical tensions could create supply chain disruptions leading to inflation spikes (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here is between the RBA's clear signaling that rates have peaked versus the uncertainty around inflation's path downward. The market's pricing and RBA's own forecasts provide strong evidence against further hikes, while the case for hikes relies mainly on tail risks or unexpected developments.\n\nMultiple independent sources (market pricing, RBA forecasts, economist surveys) all point to rates having peaked. This convergence of opinion from different stakeholders with different incentives and perspectives is particularly meaningful.\n\nThe focus has shifted from whether there will be more hikes to when cuts will begin, suggesting the hiking cycle is conclusively over barring major unexpected developments.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing this forecast requires considering:\n\n1. Historical context: Central banks typically signal clearly when hiking cycles are complete, and rarely reverse such signals without major economic developments.\n\n2. Time horizon: With only one month left in 2024 and strong consensus against hikes, my initial probability might actually be too high.\n\n3. Tail risks: While inflation surprises or external shocks are possible, they would need to be both severe and rapid to prompt a rate hike in the remaining time.\n\n4. Base rates: Looking at historical instances where central banks resumed hiking after signaling the end of a cycle, these are quite rare, especially within such a short timeframe.\n\nThe 0.15 probability appears slightly high given these considerations, particularly the short remaining time frame and the strength of the consensus. While maintaining some probability to account for tail risks, a lower number would better reflect the current situation.\n\n\n*0.08*", "probability": 0.08, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/RogerChao/will-australia-have-any-cashrate-ri", "market_probability": 0.10667168904315714, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Australia have any cash-rate rises in 2024\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- The forecasts are conditioned on a cash rate path derived from financial market pricing; it is assumed that the cash rate has peaked, with market pricing implying little chance of a further increase. The cash rate is assumed to begin to decline around mid-2025, and to decline to around 3.5 per cent by the end of 2026.\n- 3.1 The global outlook Growth in Australia\u2019s major trading partners is expected to be moderate. Year-average GDP growth for Australia\u2019s major trading partners is expected to be around 3.3 per cent in 2024 and 2025 (Graph 3.1). The 2024 forecast is a little higher than was forecast three months ago; the 2025 forecast remains unchanged.\n- The forecasts are based on the technical assumption that the cash rate is around its peak in the current cycle and will remain around this level until the middle of 2024; the cash rate path is based on financial market pricing and a survey of market economists (see Table 3.1: Detailed Forecast Table for more information). While high inflation affects all households and businesses, monetary ...\n- 3.4 Key risks to the outlook 54 3.5 Detailed forecast information 56 Box C: Headline and Underlying Inflation 59 Reserve Bank of Australia | Statement on Monetary Policy | August 2024. Overview Key messages Inflation remains above target and is proving persistent. ... The cash rate remains unchanged to support inflation returning\n- The RBA is now considered all but certain to keep the cash rate at 4.35 per cent this week and bond futures are fully priced for two quarter-point reductions in 2024, with the first move in August. (Date published: Jan 30, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Australia have any cash-rate rises in 2024\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Australia RBA cash rate forecast 2024 economic outlook\"", "search_results": "The forecasts are conditioned on a cash rate path derived from financial market pricing; it is assumed that the cash rate has peaked, with market pricing implying little chance of a further increase. The cash rate is assumed to begin to decline around mid-2025, and to decline to around 3.5 per cent by the end of 2026.\n\n3.1 The global outlook Growth in Australia\u2019s major trading partners is expected to be moderate. Year-average GDP growth for Australia\u2019s major trading partners is expected to be around 3.3 per cent in 2024 and 2025 (Graph 3.1). The 2024 forecast is a little higher than was forecast three months ago; the 2025 forecast remains unchanged.\n\nThe forecasts are based on the technical assumption that the cash rate is around its peak in the current cycle and will remain around this level until the middle of 2024; the cash rate path is based on financial market pricing and a survey of market economists (see Table 3.1: Detailed Forecast Table for more information). While high inflation affects all households and businesses, monetary ...\n\n3.4 Key risks to the outlook 54 3.5 Detailed forecast information 56 Box C: Headline and Underlying Inflation 59 Reserve Bank of Australia | Statement on Monetary Policy | August 2024. Overview Key messages Inflation remains above target and is proving persistent. ... The cash rate remains unchanged to support inflation returning\n\nThe RBA is now considered all but certain to keep the cash rate at 4.35 per cent this week and bond futures are fully priced for two quarter-point reductions in 2024, with the first move in August. (Date published: Jan 30, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Sam Altman is the CEO of OpenAI and a prominent figure in AI/tech\n2. Manifold Markets is a prediction market platform that has hosted markets about Altman\n3. There have been markets specifically about Altman's role at OpenAI and related events\n4. Altman has been very active in public discourse, speaking at events like Davos\n5. The recent OpenAI board drama led to prediction markets about Altman\n6. No clear evidence was found indicating whether Altman currently has or has ever had a Manifold Markets account\n7. Manifold Markets is a relatively niche platform compared to Altman's usual platforms/activities\n\n\n\n1. Altman is extremely busy as OpenAI CEO and likely has limited time for participating in prediction markets (8/10)\n2. As a high-profile tech executive, he may avoid participating in public betting markets due to potential PR/legal considerations (7/10)\n3. If he hasn't made an account by now despite markets about him existing, he may not see sufficient value in participating (6/10)\n4. He can observe predictions about himself/OpenAI without needing an account (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. The platform has hosted markets about him and OpenAI, which might pique his interest in participating (4/10)\n2. As someone interested in forecasting and technology, he might find value in prediction markets (5/10)\n3. Recent events like the board drama may have made him more aware of prediction markets' role in tech discourse (3/10)\n4. He might want to participate pseudonymously for market intelligence or entertainment (2/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamics here revolve around time constraints, professional considerations, and personal interest/utility. The strongest factor is Altman's extremely limited time as CEO of one of the world's most important tech companies. Additionally, participation in public betting markets could create unnecessary complications for someone in his position.\n\nWhile he might find the platform intellectually interesting, the cost-benefit analysis strongly suggests he would avoid direct participation. The potential downside risks (however small) likely outweigh any benefits he'd get from participating.\n\nEven if he's aware of and interested in prediction markets, he can get any valuable information from them without creating an account.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReflecting further, my initial consideration seems reasonable but should be checked against base rates and additional considerations:\n\n1. Base rate: Very few high-profile tech CEOs openly participate in prediction markets\n2. The window of opportunity (end of 2024) is quite short\n3. There's significant asymmetry in the decision - little upside but potential downside from participation\n4. The fact that no evidence exists of him having an account despite his high profile suggests he's deliberately avoiding participation\n\nThe combination of these factors, especially the base rate and risk asymmetry, supports a low probability. However, I should avoid being overconfident given the inherent uncertainty in predicting individual decisions. The possibility of pseudonymous participation or changing circumstances keeps this from being near-zero.\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Akzzz123/will-sam-altman-have-a-manifold-mar-5a08e204a4b6", "market_probability": 0.06447158531006623, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Sam Altman have a manifold markets account by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Resolved YES. If OpenAI does not exist in January 1st 2024: And a clear successor organization exists: If Sam Altman occupies an unique (within this successor organization) office of roughly equivalent executive power, this resolves as YES. Otherwise, this resolves as NO. If OpenAI still exists in January 1st 2024, but has no CEO: If Sam Altman occupies an unique (within OpenAI) office of ...\n- 60% chance. Resolves YES if there are fewer markets opened in 2024 with \"Sam Altman\" specifically mentioned in either the questions or answers compared to 2023. Otherwise resolves NO. I will count the number of markets based on their launch date, irrespective of whether they are still open or have been resolved.\n- 2024-11-17T09:00:02Z ... OpenAI CEO Sam Altman addresses the Station F in Paris JOEL SAGET/AFP ... Sign up to get the inside scoop on today\u2019s biggest stories in markets, tech, and business ... (Date published: Nov 17, 2024)\n- In the Davos session, 'Technology in a Turbulent World', OpenAI CEO Sam Altman explained where he sees AI heading. 'Artificial Intelligence as a Driving Force for the Economy and Society' is a key theme at the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting. Altman reflected on a year of generative AI making headlines. (Date published: Jan 18, 2024)\n- OpenAI CEO ouster followed disagreements between Sam Altman, board ... With a dearth of information from the company, prediction wager platform Manifold Markets started taking bets about the cause. ... Maharashtra Elections 2024 Business Standard at 50 IPO News Business Standard BFSI Summit 2024 Jharkhand Elections Results 2024 US Election 2024; (Date published: Nov 18, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Sam Altman have a manifold markets account by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Sam Altman Manifold Markets presence 2024", "search_results": "Resolved YES. If OpenAI does not exist in January 1st 2024: And a clear successor organization exists: If Sam Altman occupies an unique (within this successor organization) office of roughly equivalent executive power, this resolves as YES. Otherwise, this resolves as NO. If OpenAI still exists in January 1st 2024, but has no CEO: If Sam Altman occupies an unique (within OpenAI) office of ...\n\n60% chance. Resolves YES if there are fewer markets opened in 2024 with \"Sam Altman\" specifically mentioned in either the questions or answers compared to 2023. Otherwise resolves NO. I will count the number of markets based on their launch date, irrespective of whether they are still open or have been resolved.\n\n2024-11-17T09:00:02Z ... OpenAI CEO Sam Altman addresses the Station F in Paris JOEL SAGET/AFP ... Sign up to get the inside scoop on today\u2019s biggest stories in markets, tech, and business ... (Date published: Nov 17, 2024)\n\nIn the Davos session, 'Technology in a Turbulent World', OpenAI CEO Sam Altman explained where he sees AI heading. 'Artificial Intelligence as a Driving Force for the Economy and Society' is a key theme at the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting. Altman reflected on a year of generative AI making headlines. (Date published: Jan 18, 2024)\n\nOpenAI CEO ouster followed disagreements between Sam Altman, board ... With a dearth of information from the company, prediction wager platform Manifold Markets started taking bets about the cause. ... Maharashtra Elections 2024 Business Standard at 50 IPO News Business Standard BFSI Summit 2024 Jharkhand Elections Results 2024 US Election 2024; (Date published: Nov 18, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Tesla has showcased Cybertruck in Europe with planned tours to 24 cities (April 2024)\n2. Some Cybertrucks have been registered in Czech Republic, Austria, and Poland (July 2024)\n3. Tesla achieved record charging speeds (>400 kW) for Cybertruck in Europe (May 2024)\n4. Tesla has been rolling out software updates and FSD capabilities for Cybertruck\n5. European vehicle regulations differ from US regulations, often requiring specific modifications\n6. Tesla typically launches products in US market first before expanding to other regions\n7. The market closes on December 31, 2024, giving Tesla the full year to make Cybertruck available\n\n\n\n1. European regulations often require significant modifications to US-spec vehicles, which could delay availability (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Tesla has historically prioritized US market for initial rollouts and scaling production (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Production constraints at Tesla might limit ability to expand to European market quickly (Strength: 6/10)\n4. No explicit announcement of European sales timeline or pricing (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Cybertruck already registered in some European countries, suggesting regulatory compliance may be achievable (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Tesla actively testing and demonstrating Cybertruck in Europe, including charging infrastructure compatibility (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Tesla's European presence and distribution network is well-established (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Multiple software/feature updates suggest preparation for broader market availability (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamics here revolve around regulatory compliance and Tesla's production/distribution priorities. The registration of Cybertrucks in some European countries is particularly significant as it suggests Tesla has already navigated some regulatory hurdles. However, these could be test vehicles rather than consumer-ready units.\n\nThe charging speed tests and software updates indicate serious preparation for European markets, not just promotional activities. The 24-city tour also represents significant investment in European market preparation.\n\nTesla's production capabilities and prioritization remain crucial factors. Even if regulatory approval is obtained, Tesla might choose to focus on fulfilling US demand first.\n\nThe timeline until December 31, 2024 provides substantial runway for Tesla to address remaining challenges.\n\n\n0.65\n\n\nReflecting further:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: Tesla has successfully launched previous models in Europe, typically within 1-2 years of US launch\n2. The evidence of actual registrations in European countries is stronger than typical pre-launch activities\n3. The charging infrastructure testing suggests serious technical preparation\n4. However, my initial estimate may be slightly optimistic given:\n - No clear public timeline announcement\n - Historical patterns of US market prioritization\n - Potential production constraints\n5. The demonstration activities could be marketing rather than imminent launch preparation\n\nThe registered vehicles and infrastructure testing provide concrete evidence beyond mere intentions, but the lack of explicit timeline announcements suggests some uncertainty in Tesla's plans.\n\n\n*0.55*", "probability": 0.55, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/SergeyBozhko/will-tesla-cybertruck-be-available", "market_probability": 0.04069658727448474, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Tesla Cybertruck be available in Europe by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Tesla has announced the next leg of its Cybertruck tour around the world, with the unique electric pickup now set to make its way to 24 different cities in Europe. On Sunday, Tesla\u2019s Europe and ... (Date published: Apr 28, 2024)\n- Cybertruck FSD 12.5.5.3 (2024.39.5 and 2024.38.4) Release Notes \u2014 tilted mirrors, Spotify Free, Sentry Mode improvements ... The improvements listed in the FSD v13 rollout plan shared by Tesla specifically focus on HW4 vehicles. ... This will ensure that Tesla customers in China, Europe, and other regions will have access to this feature. (Date published: Oct 31, 2024)\n- Tesla updated the roadmap today for its out-of-beta Full Self-Driving (FSD) advanced driver-assist system. The automaker says it will launch the feature in the Cybertruck later this month, roll ... (Date published: Sep 5, 2024)\n- Tesla Cybertruck sets charging speed record - over 400 kW in Europe. These were Europe's best-selling cars in October 2024. Donald Trump received a Tesla Cybertruck (and a Rolex) as a gift. Mercedes makes Le Mans return, enters WEC with Iron Lynx. The 20 most powerful cars in the world. Cupra ready for US launch, here's the plan (Date published: May 18, 2024)\n- The Tesla Cybertruck can be registered in Europe after all. A Tesla official confirmed that there were EVs registered in the Czech Republic, Austria, and Poland ... 23 Jul 2024, 10:57 UTC \u2022 By ... (Date published: Jul 23, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Tesla Cybertruck be available in Europe by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Tesla Cybertruck European launch plans 2024", "search_results": "Tesla has announced the next leg of its Cybertruck tour around the world, with the unique electric pickup now set to make its way to 24 different cities in Europe. On Sunday, Tesla\u2019s Europe and ... (Date published: Apr 28, 2024)\n\nCybertruck FSD 12.5.5.3 (2024.39.5 and 2024.38.4) Release Notes \u2014 tilted mirrors, Spotify Free, Sentry Mode improvements ... The improvements listed in the FSD v13 rollout plan shared by Tesla specifically focus on HW4 vehicles. ... This will ensure that Tesla customers in China, Europe, and other regions will have access to this feature. (Date published: Oct 31, 2024)\n\nTesla updated the roadmap today for its out-of-beta Full Self-Driving (FSD) advanced driver-assist system. The automaker says it will launch the feature in the Cybertruck later this month, roll ... (Date published: Sep 5, 2024)\n\nTesla Cybertruck sets charging speed record - over 400 kW in Europe. These were Europe's best-selling cars in October 2024. Donald Trump received a Tesla Cybertruck (and a Rolex) as a gift. Mercedes makes Le Mans return, enters WEC with Iron Lynx. The 20 most powerful cars in the world. Cupra ready for US launch, here's the plan (Date published: May 18, 2024)\n\nThe Tesla Cybertruck can be registered in Europe after all. A Tesla official confirmed that there were EVs registered in the Czech Republic, Austria, and Poland ... 23 Jul 2024, 10:57 UTC \u2022 By ... (Date published: Jul 23, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Parker Solar Probe's most recent recorded speed was 394,736 mph as of September 2023\n2. The probe is designed to reach 430,000 mph by 2025 according to mission plans\n3. The probe will make its closest approach on December 24, 2024\n4. The probe remains in good health with \"all systems operating normally\" as of latest reports\n5. Each Venus flyby and solar approach increases the probe's speed\n6. The probe has consistently broken its own speed records throughout the mission\n7. The probe is scheduled to make multiple solar passes through 2024\n8. Mission parameters indicate it will eventually vaporize in the solar winds\n9. The probe completed its 21st orbit around September/October 2024\n10. Recent sources from October 2024 confirm the mission is proceeding as planned\n\n\n\n1. Technical failure could occur before reaching target speed (Strength: 3/10)\n2. Measurement equipment could malfunction, preventing accurate speed recording (Strength: 2/10)\n3. The probe could be destroyed by solar conditions before reaching maximum speed (Strength: 2/10)\n4. The planned trajectory might not achieve exactly 430,000 mph by the deadline (Strength: 4/10)\n\n\n\n1. Mission is proceeding exactly as planned with all systems normal (Strength: 9/10)\n2. The December 24, 2024 approach is specifically designed to reach this speed (Strength: 9/10)\n3. The probe has consistently achieved its planned velocity increases (Strength: 8/10)\n4. Recent sources confirm the mission is on track for the December milestone (Strength: 8/10)\n5. The probe has already achieved ~395,000 mph, relatively close to target (Strength: 7/10)\n\n\n\nThe primary consideration here is that this is not a speculative target - it's a carefully calculated orbital trajectory that has been planned since the mission's inception. The probe has consistently hit its planned milestones and is specifically designed to achieve this speed through gravitational assists and orbital mechanics.\n\nThe main failure modes would be catastrophic technical failure or destruction by solar conditions, but the probe has proven remarkably resilient and all systems are functioning normally. The gap between current speed (395,000 mph) and target (430,000 mph) is significant but well within the planned capabilities of the final approaches.\n\nThe December 24, 2024 approach is specifically designed to achieve this speed, and recent sources confirm the mission is on track for this milestone.\n\n\n0.92\n\n\nReviewing my initial estimate:\n\n1. Base rate considerations: The Parker Solar Probe has hit all its major mission milestones thus far, suggesting a very high success rate for planned maneuvers.\n\n2. The remaining technical challenges are well understood and accounted for in mission planning.\n\n3. Multiple independent sources confirm the December approach is specifically designed to achieve this speed.\n\n4. The probe has already demonstrated reliable operation at speeds close to the target.\n\n5. The primary risk factors (technical failure, solar damage) have proven to be lower than initially estimated based on mission performance.\n\n6. The certainty of orbital mechanics, combined with the probe's proven reliability, suggests my initial probability might be slightly low. The main uncertainty is not whether the trajectory will work (it will, based on physics), but whether some unexpected technical issue prevents completion.\n\n\n*0.95*", "probability": 0.95, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/EstMtz/will-nasas-parker-solar-probe-excee", "market_probability": 0.3299132778185998, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill NASA's Parker Solar Probe exceed 430,000 mph before 2025?\n \n**Description:**\n[image]Resolution Criteria:\n\nMarket resolves YES if the Parker Solar Probe records a top speed greater than 430,000 miles per hour in 2024\n\nMarket resolves NO if the Parker Solar Probe records a top speed less than 430,000 miles per hour in 2024\n\nMarket resolves NO if the Parker Solar Probe records a top speed equal to 430,000 miles per hour in 2024\n\nMarket resolves NO if the Parker Solar Probe is destroyed or speed cannot be measured accurately\n\nMarket will resolve according to: https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/\n\nThis section: \n\n[image]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe\n\n\"The Parker Solar Probe (PSP; previously Solar Probe, Solar Probe Plus or Solar Probe+) is a NASA space probe launched in 2018 with the mission of making observations of the outer corona of the Sun.\"\n\n\"It will approach to within 9.86 solar radii (6.9 million km or 4.3 million miles) from the center of the Sun, and by 2025 will travel, at closest approach, as fast as 690,000 km/h (430,000 mph) or 191 km/s, which is 0.064% the speed of light.\"\n\n\"It is the fastest object ever built.\"\n\nhttps://www.popsci.com/technology/parker-solar-probe-speed-record/\n\n\"Despite its punishing journey, NASA reports the Parker Solar Probe remains in good health with \u201call systems operating normally.\u201d Despite its numerous records, the probe is far from finished with its mission; there are still seven more solar pass-bys scheduled through 2024. At that point (well within Mercury\u2019s orbit), the Parker Solar Probe will finally succumb to the sun\u2019s extreme effects and vaporize into the solar winds\u2014 \u201csort of a poetic ending,\u201d\"\n\nhttps://blogs.nasa.gov/parkersolarprobe/2023/09/28/for-the-record-parker-solar-probe-sets-distance-speed-marks-on-17th-swing-by-the-sun/\n\nSeptember 28, 2023\n\n\n\"NASA\u2019s Parker Solar Probe completed its 17th close approach to the Sun on Sept. 27, 2023, breaking its own distance record by skimming just 4.51 million miles (7.26 million kilometers) from the solar surface.\"\n\n\"Set up by a gravity-assist flyby of Venus on Aug. 21, the close approach (known as perihelion) occurred at 7:28 p.m. EDT, with Parker Solar Probe moving 394,736 miles per hour (635,266 kilometers per hour) around the Sun \u2013 another record.\"\n\n\"The milestone also marked the midway point in the mission\u2019s 17th solar encounter, which began Sept. 22 and continues through Oct. 3.\"\n\nhttps://www.space.com/nasa-parker-solar-probe-fastest-man-made-object-breaks-record\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- The Parker Solar Probe (PSP; previously Solar Probe, ... In March 2024, both space probes were at their closest approach to the Sun, PSP at 7.3 million km, and SolO at 45 million km. SolO observed the Sun, while PSP sampled the plasma of solar wind, that allowed scientists to compare data from both probes. ... List of vehicle speed records ...\n- The Parker Solar Probe is about to undergo its seventh encounter with Venus on its journey towards the Sun. ... Already having set a spacecraft speed record of 176 km/s at perihelion in 2023 and ... (Date published: Sep 30, 2024)\n- The Christmas Eve 2024 close flyby will also break the probe's previous speed record . As Parker gets closer to the sun, the immense gravitational influence of our star will accelerate the ... (Date published: Jan 9, 2024)\n- After flying by Venus, Parker will make the first of at least three planned passes at that unprecedented distance \u2014 while whizzing past the Sun at a record 430,000 miles per hour \u2014 on Dec. 24, 2024. Parker Solar Probe is currently in its 21 st orbit, about to begin a science encounter that culminates on Sept. 30, 2024, with a close approach ...\n- ParkerBot is a virtual assistant for all information on NASA's Parker Solar Probe mission, as well as solar eclipses, space weather or other facts and findings on the science of the Sun. ... Current Records Set By Parker Solar Probe. ... October 3, 2024. Parker Solar Probe Completes 21st Close Approach to the Sun. August 30, 2024. (Date published: Oct 8, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill NASA's Parker Solar Probe exceed 430,000 mph before 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Parker Solar Probe speed record 2024", "search_results": "The Parker Solar Probe (PSP; previously Solar Probe, ... In March 2024, both space probes were at their closest approach to the Sun, PSP at 7.3 million km, and SolO at 45 million km. SolO observed the Sun, while PSP sampled the plasma of solar wind, that allowed scientists to compare data from both probes. ... List of vehicle speed records ...\n\nThe Parker Solar Probe is about to undergo its seventh encounter with Venus on its journey towards the Sun. ... Already having set a spacecraft speed record of 176 km/s at perihelion in 2023 and ... (Date published: Sep 30, 2024)\n\nThe Christmas Eve 2024 close flyby will also break the probe's previous speed record . As Parker gets closer to the sun, the immense gravitational influence of our star will accelerate the ... (Date published: Jan 9, 2024)\n\nAfter flying by Venus, Parker will make the first of at least three planned passes at that unprecedented distance \u2014 while whizzing past the Sun at a record 430,000 miles per hour \u2014 on Dec. 24, 2024. Parker Solar Probe is currently in its 21 st orbit, about to begin a science encounter that culminates on Sept. 30, 2024, with a close approach ...\n\nParkerBot is a virtual assistant for all information on NASA's Parker Solar Probe mission, as well as solar eclipses, space weather or other facts and findings on the science of the Sun. ... Current Records Set By Parker Solar Probe. ... October 3, 2024. Parker Solar Probe Completes 21st Close Approach to the Sun. August 30, 2024. (Date published: Oct 8, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Usain Bolt's 100m world record is 9.58 seconds, set in 2009\n2. Aron D'Souza plans to launch the Enhanced Games in 2024\n3. The Enhanced Games will explicitly allow performance-enhancing substances banned by WADA\n4. Million-dollar bounties are being offered for breaking world records\n5. The Enhanced Games is a new, untested concept without established infrastructure\n6. No specific date or venue for the 2024 Enhanced Games has been announced in available sources\n7. Modern PEDs can significantly improve athletic performance, particularly in explosive power events\n8. Even with PEDs, the 9.58 record has stood for 15 years despite likely unofficial PED use in athletics\n9. D'Souza claims to know someone who has already broken the record\n\n\n\n1. Organizational challenges: New events are complex to organize, and there's no evidence of concrete logistics or venue arrangements (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Credibility barrier: Established athletes might avoid association with explicitly PED-friendly competition to protect their mainstream careers (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Technical complexity: Even with PEDs, breaking Bolt's phenomenal record requires exceptional talent, perfect conditions, and precise timing systems (Strength: 8/10)\n4. Time constraint: Only one month remains in 2024, severely limiting opportunities (Strength: 9/10)\n5. Possible PR stunt: The entire concept might be more about generating publicity than actual competition (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Financial incentive: Million-dollar bounties could attract talented athletes willing to use PEDs openly (Strength: 6/10)\n2. D'Souza's claim: Statement about knowing someone who broke the record suggests at least one capable candidate exists (Strength: 4/10)\n3. PED effectiveness: Modern performance enhancement could push human capabilities beyond natural limits (Strength: 7/10)\n4. Underground interest: Athletes currently using PEDs secretly might see this as an opportunity to compete openly (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key factors here interact in complex ways:\n1. Time constraint is severe - with only one month left, this requires not just success but imminent success\n2. The organizational hurdles for a new sporting event are substantial\n3. D'Souza's claims lack strong verification and could be promotional\n4. The technical requirements for official record recognition need consideration\n\nThe conjunction of necessary conditions makes this highly unlikely:\n- Event must actually occur in December 2024\n- Proper timing systems and verification must be in place\n- A sufficiently talented athlete must participate\n- Conditions must be favorable\n- The enhancement must provide enough advantage\n\nThe time constraint is particularly damaging to probability given the lack of confirmed event details this late in the year.\n\n\n0.03\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n1. Base rate: No one has broken this record in 15 years despite likely unofficial PED use\n2. Time pressure creates a strong prior against success given complex organizational requirements\n3. The conjunction of necessary conditions suggests my initial estimate might even be high\n4. Similar ventures (XFL, alternative sports leagues) often face significant organizational challenges\n5. The lack of concrete event details this close to supposed execution is particularly concerning\n\nThe combination of time constraint, organizational complexity, and technical challenge makes this highly improbable. However, I shouldn't completely rule it out given the theoretical possibility of a last-minute event with a genuinely capable enhanced athlete.\n\n\n*0.02*", "probability": 0.02, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/AaronGertlerc75f/will-an-enhanced-athlete-break-usai", "market_probability": 0.07332842763615335, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill an \"enhanced\" athlete break Usain Bolt's 100m dash record in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nBusinessman Aaron D'Souza claims that he is planning to hold the \"Enhanced Games\" in 2024 \u2014 an Olympics-like athletic competition where all (?) performance-enhancing drugs are permitted. He also claims to know of someone who has broken Usain Bolt's 100m sprint record.\n\nNote that the video linked in the initial Tweet is apparently stock footage. I haven't looked closely into the extent to which the Enhanced Games are real vs. a weird PR stunt, but their Twitter responses are earnest and they've been covered (in brief) by some big newspapers.\n\nI'm not sure of all the technical Manifold rules here, but I think this should resolve as \"yes\" if a record-breaking time is recorded in some official-seeming way by people who either don't have a vested interest in the outcome or are being watched by neutral observers. We'll probably know a broken record if we see it.\n\nNote that this should resolve \"yes\" as long as the record is broken by an athlete who claims to be using PEDs, whether or not it happens at an event called \"the Enhanced Games\".\n\n(I'd welcome other feedback on how to make this a better/more norms-abiding market.)\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- In the summer of 2023, Mr. D\u2019Souza shocked the sports world with an announcement that he was creating a new event called the Enhanced Games, which he said would be a far-ranging athletic ... (Date published: Nov 23, 2024)\n- Now, Aron D'Souza is making the same offer to the world's best athletes. The Enhanced Games has put million-dollar bounties on world records: move fast, break records and you can earn big. (Date published: Mar 28, 2024)\n- Businessman Aron D\u2019Souza plans to launch the Enhanced Games in 2024 \u2014 a multi-sport competition aiming to break world records and allow athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs. (Date published: Aug 2, 2023)\n- The Enhanced Games will allow athletes to use substances banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) -- in D'Souza's words \"performance medicine technology\" -- to give them the opportunity \"to ... (Date published: Feb 14, 2024)\n- Meanwhile, keeping the IOC\u2019s philosophy of \u201clower-impact Games\u201d in mind, 95% of venues will be pre-existing facilities at the Paris 2024 Olympics. D\u2019Souza said the Enhanced Games will ... (Date published: Oct 30, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill an \"enhanced\" athlete break Usain Bolt's 100m dash record in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Enhanced Games Aaron D'Souza current status 2024\"", "search_results": "In the summer of 2023, Mr. D\u2019Souza shocked the sports world with an announcement that he was creating a new event called the Enhanced Games, which he said would be a far-ranging athletic ... (Date published: Nov 23, 2024)\n\nNow, Aron D'Souza is making the same offer to the world's best athletes. The Enhanced Games has put million-dollar bounties on world records: move fast, break records and you can earn big. (Date published: Mar 28, 2024)\n\nBusinessman Aron D\u2019Souza plans to launch the Enhanced Games in 2024 \u2014 a multi-sport competition aiming to break world records and allow athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs. (Date published: Aug 2, 2023)\n\nThe Enhanced Games will allow athletes to use substances banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) -- in D'Souza's words \"performance medicine technology\" -- to give them the opportunity \"to ... (Date published: Feb 14, 2024)\n\nMeanwhile, keeping the IOC\u2019s philosophy of \u201clower-impact Games\u201d in mind, 95% of venues will be pre-existing facilities at the Paris 2024 Olympics. D\u2019Souza said the Enhanced Games will ... (Date published: Oct 30, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. GPT-4's parameter count is not publicly known but estimated around 1-1.5 trillion parameters\n2. GPT-3 had 175 billion parameters, GPT-2 had 1.5 billion parameters\n3. AI expert Alan Thompson estimates GPT-5 might have 2-5 trillion parameters\n4. NVIDIA claims hardware exists to train a 27T parameter model using 20,000 GB200 chips\n5. Microsoft has added 150,000 H100 GPUs to their infrastructure\n6. Historical trend shows exponential growth in parameter count between generations\n7. The most recent source (Nov 2024) doesn't mention parameter counts\n8. OpenAI's CEO emphasizes intelligence improvements rather than parameter count for GPT-5\n\n\n\n1. Parameter count isn't necessarily correlated with intelligence/capability improvements (8/10)\n2. Training and inference costs scale dramatically with parameter count, making >5T potentially inefficient (7/10)\n3. Recent AI advances have focused on efficiency and architecture improvements rather than raw size (6/10)\n4. OpenAI's emphasis on intelligence rather than size suggests they may be pursuing other optimization strategies (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Hardware capability exists to train models well above 5T parameters (9/10)\n2. Historical trend of exponential parameter growth between generations suggests >5T is feasible (7/10)\n3. Competition with other AI companies might push OpenAI to pursue larger models (5/10)\n4. Microsoft's massive GPU infrastructure investment enables training of extremely large models (6/10)\n\n\n\nThe key tension here is between technical capability and strategic choice. While the hardware clearly exists to train >5T parameter models, this doesn't mean OpenAI will choose this approach. The trend toward efficiency and architectural improvements suggests diminishing returns from raw parameter count increases.\n\nThe fact that OpenAI keeps parameter counts secret and emphasizes intelligence over size is particularly telling. This could indicate either that they're moving away from the \"bigger is better\" paradigm, or that they're maintaining competitive advantage through secrecy.\n\nKey consideration: Even if GPT-5 has multiple model sizes (like GPT-4 and GPT-4 Turbo), the question asks about any version exceeding 5T parameters.\n\n\n0.35\n\n\nLooking at this from a base rate perspective: No publicly known language model has reached 5T parameters yet, despite hardware capability existing. This suggests meaningful technical or economic barriers beyond raw capability.\n\nThe sources appear somewhat speculative and might suffer from extrapolation bias based on historical parameter growth. The most recent source notably doesn't mention parameters, possibly indicating a shift in industry focus.\n\nThe competition factor might be overweighted in initial analysis - companies appear to be competing more on efficiency and specialized capabilities than raw size.\n\nA key insight is that while 5T parameters is technically feasible, it represents a massive jump from current estimated sizes (>3x from GPT-4's estimated size). Such a jump would be larger than previous generational increases in relative terms.\n\n\n*0.30*", "probability": 0.3, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/_deleted_/will-gpt5-have-more-than-5-trillion", "market_probability": 0.6506457292620552, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill GPT-5 have more than 5 trillion parameters?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- So, let\u2019s try to make a little sense of it all and discuss some key enhancements expected from GPT-5. Parameter size. While the exact parameter size of GPT-4 remains under wraps, there\u2019s an ongoing trend toward more complex and capable models. Most sources indicate the number might be around 1.5 trillion parameters. Image by Author. (Date published: Feb 14, 2024)\n- Rumors and Predictions for GPT-5. The release date of GPT-5 remains shrouded in rumors and speculations. According to various sources, GPT-4.5 might arrive as early as September, while others anticipate the launch of GPT-5 by the end of 2024 or early 2025. ... The potential parameter count of GPT-4 is speculated to be in the range of 1 trillion ... (Date published: Feb 15, 2024)\n- OpenAI hasn\u2019t revealed the exact number of parameters for GPT-5, but it\u2019s estimated to have about 1.5 trillion parameters. This is a huge jump from GPT-3\u2019s 175 billion and GPT-2\u2019s 1.5 billion. AI expert Alan Thompson, who advises Google and Microsoft, thinks GPT-5 might have 2-5 trillion parameters. He bases this on the increase in ... (Date published: Jun 5, 2024)\n- Pretty close. Jensen/NVIDIA reckons we easily have hardware to train a 27T parameter model using just 20,000 GB200 chips, and we know Microsoft has added another 150,000 of the \u2018older\u2019 H100s, so 50T parameters certainly isn\u2019t out of the question\u2026. 2/May/2024: OpenAI CEO: \u201cThe most important thing to say about GPT-5 versus GPT-4 is just that it\u2019ll be smarter.\n- ChatGPT 5, underpinned by the GPT-5 AI model, promises to improve on GPT-4\u2019s capabilities, acting as the bridge between human and machine communication. As a generative pre-trained transformer , it is designed to enhance interaction by delivering more personalized and accurate responses and promises to handle a broader array of content ... (Date published: Nov 18, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill GPT-5 have more than 5 trillion parameters?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"GPT-5 parameter count rumors and predictions\"", "search_results": "So, let\u2019s try to make a little sense of it all and discuss some key enhancements expected from GPT-5. Parameter size. While the exact parameter size of GPT-4 remains under wraps, there\u2019s an ongoing trend toward more complex and capable models. Most sources indicate the number might be around 1.5 trillion parameters. Image by Author. (Date published: Feb 14, 2024)\n\nRumors and Predictions for GPT-5. The release date of GPT-5 remains shrouded in rumors and speculations. According to various sources, GPT-4.5 might arrive as early as September, while others anticipate the launch of GPT-5 by the end of 2024 or early 2025. ... The potential parameter count of GPT-4 is speculated to be in the range of 1 trillion ... (Date published: Feb 15, 2024)\n\nOpenAI hasn\u2019t revealed the exact number of parameters for GPT-5, but it\u2019s estimated to have about 1.5 trillion parameters. This is a huge jump from GPT-3\u2019s 175 billion and GPT-2\u2019s 1.5 billion. AI expert Alan Thompson, who advises Google and Microsoft, thinks GPT-5 might have 2-5 trillion parameters. He bases this on the increase in ... (Date published: Jun 5, 2024)\n\nPretty close. Jensen/NVIDIA reckons we easily have hardware to train a 27T parameter model using just 20,000 GB200 chips, and we know Microsoft has added another 150,000 of the \u2018older\u2019 H100s, so 50T parameters certainly isn\u2019t out of the question\u2026. 2/May/2024: OpenAI CEO: \u201cThe most important thing to say about GPT-5 versus GPT-4 is just that it\u2019ll be smarter.\n\nChatGPT 5, underpinned by the GPT-5 AI model, promises to improve on GPT-4\u2019s capabilities, acting as the bridge between human and machine communication. As a generative pre-trained transformer , it is designed to enhance interaction by delivering more personalized and accurate responses and promises to handle a broader array of content ... (Date published: Nov 18, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Multiple AI-generated disinformation incidents have already occurred in 2024, including fake Biden robocalls and viral social media content\n2. The question requires both virality (10k+ likes or 1M views) and confirmation of being disinformation (community noted/Snopes)\n3. There's only one month left in 2024 when this forecast is being made\n4. AI video generation technology has been actively used in political contexts throughout 2024\n5. Previous examples include doctored videos of Biden and AI-generated content of Trump's father\n6. Media moratoriums and timing can affect the ability to debunk disinformation effectively\n7. Xitter (formerly Twitter) has community notes as a built-in fact-checking mechanism\n8. The bar for \"completely generated by AI\" is higher than merely doctoring or manipulating existing footage\n9. Political tensions typically remain high in December following US elections\n\n\n\n1. Only one month remains in 2024, reducing the window of opportunity (Strength: 8/10)\n2. \"Completely generated by AI\" is a stricter requirement than edited/manipulated content, which has been more common (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Increased awareness and scrutiny of AI-generated content may lead to faster detection and reduced viral spread (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Post-election period might see reduced political motivation for creating viral disinformation (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Multiple precedents of AI-generated content going viral for disinformation purposes already in 2024 (Strength: 8/10)\n2. AI video generation capabilities continue to improve rapidly (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Xitter's reduced content moderation makes it particularly vulnerable to disinformation spread (Strength: 7/10)\n4. The virality threshold (10k likes/1M views) is relatively achievable on Xitter for controversial content (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\nThe key tension here is between the short remaining timeframe and the demonstrated prevalence of AI-generated disinformation throughout 2024. The barriers to achieving this are:\n1. Creating fully AI-generated (not just edited) video\n2. Achieving viral spread\n3. Getting official confirmation of it being disinformation\n4. All within one month\n\nWhile each individual component has occurred before, the conjunction of all requirements makes this more challenging. However, the infrastructure for both spread (Xitter) and verification (community notes) is already in place, reducing friction for these components.\n\nThe post-election period might actually increase rather than decrease the likelihood, as there may be motivation to spread narratives about the election results or future political developments.\n\n\n0.65\n\n\nReviewing this forecast requires careful consideration of base rates and conjunction fallacy. Looking at historical data:\n- AI-generated videos have gone viral multiple times in 2024\n- The community notes system has been active in flagging disinformation\n- Previous instances often took days rather than weeks to achieve both virality and verification\n\nThe one-month timeframe is less limiting than it might initially appear, as viral spread typically happens within days. The main constraint is actually the \"completely generated\" requirement, but given the advancement of AI video technology throughout 2024, this is increasingly feasible.\n\nA key consideration is that we're not requiring specific content or actors - any AI-generated video that spreads disinformation would qualify. This makes it more likely than if we were looking for a specific type of content.\n\nThe conjunction of requirements (viral + disinformation + fully AI-generated) should pull the probability down somewhat, but given the established patterns and infrastructure, my initial estimate appears reasonable.\n\n\n*0.58*", "probability": 0.58, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Pyra/by-the-end-of-2024-a-video-complete", "market_probability": 0.6583758384542285, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nBy the end of 2024, a video completely generated by AI will be virally used as disinformation on Xitter\n \n**Description:**\nVirality will be defined as 10k+ likes or 1M views\n\nDisinformation will be defined as community noted or Snopes after being posted as real.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- The AI-generated hell of the 2024 election By Sarah Jeong , features editor who publishes award-winning stories about law, tech, and internet subcultures. A journalist trained as a lawyer, she has ... (Date published: Nov 4, 2024)\n- AI-generated political disinformation already has gone viral online ahead of the 2024 election, from a doctored video of Biden appearing to give a speech attacking transgender people to AI ... (Date published: May 15, 2023)\n- Already, the US has seen AI-generated disinformation in action. In New Hampshire, a fake version of President Joe Biden\u2019s voice was featured in robocalls that sought to discourage Democrats from ... (Date published: Feb 1, 2024)\n- Here we keep track of known examples of deepfakes in the upcoming 2024 US presidential election. ... Posted on twitter.com by an account with a track record of spreading disinformation, this video purports to show President Biden ... (a centrist PAC), released an AI-generated video of Trump's father, Fred Trump saying things like \"Everyone ...\n- The AI-crafted fake audio post went viral during a pre-election media moratorium, limiting the degree to which it could be debunked, and the candidate lost to a pro-Russia rival. Analysts are ... (Date published: Mar 13, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nBy the end of 2024, a video completely generated by AI will be virally used as disinformation on Xitter\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "AI-generated viral disinformation video examples 2024", "search_results": "The AI-generated hell of the 2024 election By Sarah Jeong , features editor who publishes award-winning stories about law, tech, and internet subcultures. A journalist trained as a lawyer, she has ... (Date published: Nov 4, 2024)\n\nAI-generated political disinformation already has gone viral online ahead of the 2024 election, from a doctored video of Biden appearing to give a speech attacking transgender people to AI ... (Date published: May 15, 2023)\n\nAlready, the US has seen AI-generated disinformation in action. In New Hampshire, a fake version of President Joe Biden\u2019s voice was featured in robocalls that sought to discourage Democrats from ... (Date published: Feb 1, 2024)\n\nHere we keep track of known examples of deepfakes in the upcoming 2024 US presidential election. ... Posted on twitter.com by an account with a track record of spreading disinformation, this video purports to show President Biden ... (a centrist PAC), released an AI-generated video of Trump's father, Fred Trump saying things like \"Everyone ...\n\nThe AI-crafted fake audio post went viral during a pre-election media moratorium, limiting the degree to which it could be debunked, and the candidate lost to a pro-Russia rival. Analysts are ... (Date published: Mar 13, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. OpenAI released \"o1-preview\" and \"o1-mini\" models in September 2024, deviating from their typical GPT-X naming scheme\n2. A recent model release in November 2024 used \"gpt-4o-2024-11-20\" naming format\n3. OpenAI has historically used incremental numbers (GPT-3, GPT-4) for their major model releases\n4. In January 2022, OpenAI updated many engine names to be \"clearer and support adding more models\"\n5. OpenAI has about one month left in 2024 to release additional models\n6. The company has shown willingness to experiment with naming conventions, as evidenced by the \"o1\" series\n\n\n\n1. OpenAI has already used a different naming scheme with o1-preview/mini in 2024, so they may have satisfied their experimentation with naming for the year (8/10)\n2. The recent November release still largely followed their numbered convention (gpt-4o), suggesting they're maintaining consistency (6/10)\n3. Brand recognition of the \"GPT\" series is valuable, making dramatic naming changes risky (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. They've already demonstrated willingness to try new naming schemes this year with o1-series (9/10)\n2. The market question appears to ask if they will use ANY different name, which has already occurred (10/10)\n3. The company may want to differentiate future specialized models with distinct naming conventions (4/10)\n\n\n\nThe key realization here is that OpenAI has already used a different naming scheme in 2024 with the o1-series models. Since the question asks if they \"will\" use a different name this year, and they already have, this should technically resolve as yes regardless of future releases.\n\nThe existence of the o1-series models appears to be a clear violation of their traditional incremental numbering scheme, making this a straightforward case. The only potential ambiguity would be if there's some specific criteria about what constitutes their \"traditional\" naming scheme that wouldn't count the o1-series as different.\n\n\n0.95\n\n\nLooking at this from a different angle:\n1. The question's resolution conditions don't specify any exclusions or special criteria\n2. The o1-series naming is clearly distinct from their traditional GPT-X numbering scheme\n3. The change has already occurred in 2024, making this effectively a question about past events\n4. The only reasonable doubt would come from potential ambiguity in interpretation\n\nGiven this is effectively asking about a past event that has already occurred (the o1-series release), and there's clear evidence of this different naming scheme, I should be even more confident. The only reason not to be 100% certain is the small possibility of some technical interpretation that would exclude the o1-series as qualifying as \"different.\"\n\n\n*0.98*", "probability": 0.98, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Sigmund/will-openai-use-a-different-name-fo", "market_probability": 0.9714431952946573, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill OpenAI use a different name for an AI model this year than the names it already used with incremental numbers?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Charlie French (2024-09-24): When will this resolve?\n- Sigmund (2024-10-06): By the end of the year. I hope I fixed it. It was a question that my brother thoughtlessly posted.\n- Charlie French (2024-10-06): May I ask why? Openai has already released a model that deviates from their naming scheme.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Hello! The Instruct series, previously in beta, are now our recommended GPT-3 models. As part of this change, we\u2019ve also updated many of our engine names to be clearer and support adding more models in the future. API requests that specify the old engine names will continue working as expected, but we recommend that you start using the new names going forward. The changes you will see ... (Date published: Jan 20, 2022)\n- Introducing OpenAI o1-preview and o1-mini (September 12, 2024) We've developed a new series of AI models designed to spend more time thinking before they respond. They can reason through complex tasks and solve harder problems than previous models in science, coding, and math. ... Although we\u2019d like to tell you exactly how the model responses ...\n- Little spoken about this model release. OpenAI tweets, more about ChatGPT: The model\u2019s creative writing ability has leveled up \u2013 more natural, engaging, and tailored writing to improve relevance & readability. ... gpt-4o-2024-11-20 (sorry: I manually fixed the mathjax latex markup for formulas for the forum - and then \u201chide details ... (Date published: Nov 22, 2024)\n- May 08, 2024. Overview. This is the first draft of the Model Spec, a document that specifies desired behavior for our models in the OpenAI API and ChatGPT. It includes a set of core objectives, as well as guidance on how to deal with conflicting objectives or instructions. ... Reflect well on OpenAI: Respect social norms and applicable law. (Date published: May 8, 2024)\n- More on GPT-4. Research GPT-4 is the latest milestone in OpenAI\u2019s effort in scaling up deep learning. View GPT-4 research \u2060. Infrastructure GPT-4 was trained on Microsoft Azure AI supercomputers. Azure\u2019s AI-optimized infrastructure also allows us to deliver GPT-4 to users around the world.\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill OpenAI use a different name for an AI model this year than the names it already used with incremental numbers?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "OpenAI model naming convention 2024", "search_results": "Hello! The Instruct series, previously in beta, are now our recommended GPT-3 models. As part of this change, we\u2019ve also updated many of our engine names to be clearer and support adding more models in the future. API requests that specify the old engine names will continue working as expected, but we recommend that you start using the new names going forward. The changes you will see ... (Date published: Jan 20, 2022)\n\nIntroducing OpenAI o1-preview and o1-mini (September 12, 2024) We've developed a new series of AI models designed to spend more time thinking before they respond. They can reason through complex tasks and solve harder problems than previous models in science, coding, and math. ... Although we\u2019d like to tell you exactly how the model responses ...\n\nLittle spoken about this model release. OpenAI tweets, more about ChatGPT: The model\u2019s creative writing ability has leveled up \u2013 more natural, engaging, and tailored writing to improve relevance & readability. ... gpt-4o-2024-11-20 (sorry: I manually fixed the mathjax latex markup for formulas for the forum - and then \u201chide details ... (Date published: Nov 22, 2024)\n\nMay 08, 2024. Overview. This is the first draft of the Model Spec, a document that specifies desired behavior for our models in the OpenAI API and ChatGPT. It includes a set of core objectives, as well as guidance on how to deal with conflicting objectives or instructions. ... Reflect well on OpenAI: Respect social norms and applicable law. (Date published: May 8, 2024)\n\nMore on GPT-4. Research GPT-4 is the latest milestone in OpenAI\u2019s effort in scaling up deep learning. View GPT-4 research \u2060. Infrastructure GPT-4 was trained on Microsoft Azure AI supercomputers. Azure\u2019s AI-optimized infrastructure also allows us to deliver GPT-4 to users around the world."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. S&P 500's current all-time high is 5,667.20 (as of July 16, 2024)\n2. The question asks if it will close below 4,499.99 at any point during Q2-Q4 2024\n3. We are currently at December 1, 2024, with one month left in the forecast period\n4. S&P 500 closed at 5,064.20 on May 2, 2024\n5. The U.S. economy is expected to grow 2.7% in 2024 and 1.8% in 2025 according to S&P Global Ratings\n6. These growth forecasts were revised upward by 0.2 and 0.1 percentage points respectively\n7. Q2 2024 GDP growth was projected at 2.7% (down from earlier 3.5% projection)\n8. The target level (4,499.99) represents a ~20.6% decline from the all-time high\n\n\n\n1. Strong economic growth forecasts and positive revisions suggest market stability (7/10)\n2. Market has shown resilience, maintaining levels well above 4,500 throughout much of 2024 (8/10)\n3. Only one month remains in the forecast period, reducing time for significant downside (9/10)\n4. Financial conditions have turned more positive according to recent reports (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Market corrections are common and can be sudden (6/10)\n2. Current market levels are historically high, increasing potential for mean reversion (5/10)\n3. December can be volatile due to tax-loss harvesting and portfolio rebalancing (4/10)\n4. High valuations might make market more susceptible to negative news (5/10)\n\n\n\nThe primary consideration is the extremely short time remaining (1 month) combined with the significant drop required (~20.6%) to reach the target level. While market corrections are common, a drop of this magnitude typically occurs over longer periods unless triggered by major negative events.\n\nHistorical data suggests that 20%+ declines in a single month are extremely rare events. Even during severe market stress like March 2020 (COVID), October 2008 (Financial Crisis), or October 1987 (Black Monday), such dramatic monthly declines were exceptional.\n\nThe strong economic backdrop and positive growth revisions further reduce the likelihood of a major market dislocation in December 2024.\n\n\n0.02\n\n\nReviewing this estimate:\n- The base rate for 20%+ monthly declines in the S&P 500 is extremely low (less than 1% of months historically)\n- The current economic environment appears stable, with positive growth forecasts\n- December tends to have a slight upward seasonal bias historically\n- The market has demonstrated stability above these levels throughout 2024\n- No major known catalysts for such a dramatic decline are apparent\n\nThe 0.02 (2%) probability might actually be too high given:\n1. The extremely short time window remaining\n2. The magnitude of decline required\n3. Positive economic backdrop\n4. Historical rarity of such events\n\nHowever, we should maintain some probability to account for \"unknown unknowns\" and the possibility of black swan events.\n\n\n*0.01*", "probability": 0.01, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/DistinctlySkeptical/-will-the-sp-500-indexspinx-close-l-a0ed92dcc724", "market_probability": 0.05700298404328415, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \n\ud83c\udfdb\u2b06\ufe0f Will The S&P 500 (INDEXSP:.INX) Close Lower Than 4,499.99 At Any Point During Q2-Q4 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\ud83c\udfdb\u2b06\ufe0f Will The S&P 500 (INDEXSP:.INX) Close Lower Than 4,499.99 At Any Point During Q2-Q4 2024?\n\nS&P 500 (INDEXSP:.INX)\n\nPredictions are open the entire year or until event occurs.\n\nResolve YES according to question as soon as it happens, or NO at the end of the trading year if it does not happen.\n\nResolves according to the display at *Google Finance\n\nThe All Time High Of The S&P 500 IS NOW @ ATH 5,667.20 (Tuesday, July 16, 2024)\n\nCONTEXT\n\n[image]Source Link\n\nCLARIFICATIONS:\n\nN/A\n\nDISCLAIMER\n\nI DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN MARKETS I CREATE\n\nDO NOT TRADE OFF OF UNCONFIRMED MARKET NEWS OR NEWS YOU MAY NOT UNDERSTAND. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MISUNDERSTANDING IF YOU DO NOT ASK FOR CLARIFICATION FIRST.\n\nIf Any Clarification Is Needed, I May Temporarily Close The Market To Make Clarifying Statements & Than Re-Open ; Feel Free To Ask For Clarification Through Messages Rather Than Making A Comment. Comments are not a clarification unless posted into the description.\n\n*If Google Has A Visual Error (eg. Green chart/negative closing price ; Red chart/positive closing price) This Will Resolve To The Closing Price Of Majority Same Numbers Reported By Yahoo/Marketwatch/WSJ/CNBC\n\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Distinctly Skeptical (2024-05-03): 5,064.20 Close 05/02/2024\n- Distinctly Skeptical (2024-07-09): The All Time High Of The S&P 500 IS NOW @ \\n5,576.98 Tuesday, July 9, 2024\n- Distinctly Skeptical (2024-07-16): \\nATH 5,667.20 (Tuesday, July 16, 2024)\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- And yet the S&P 500 returned an average 11% per year (more than 4,000% on a cumulative basis) in that time. Investors who stay the course through bouts of volatility can be rewarded \u2015 sometimes quickly as was the case this August. Corrections are common S&P 500 largest intra-year drawdowns, 1989-2024 (Date published: Sep 25, 2024)\n- S&P Global Ratings expects the U.S. economy to expand 2.7% in 2024 and 1.8% in 2025 (on an annual average basis). The growth forecasts are 0.2 and 0.1 percentage point higher, respectively, compared with our June forecasts, partly reflecting the impulse from financial conditions that turned more positive and partly on stronger core goods consumption than previously expected. On a year-end ... (Date published: Sep 24, 2024)\n- What they\u2019ll do is they\u2019ll come up with some sort of model or algorithm to forecast S&P 500 earnings, apply some sort of forward multiple to it, and to me, that always seems to be more of an ... (Date published: Oct 14, 2024)\n- The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow tool's forecast of annualized real GDP growth rate during 2024-Q2 dropped to +2.7% from the +3.5% growth projected a week earlier. Meanwhile, the BEA's estimate of ... (Date published: Jun 3, 2024)\n- Note: Views are from a euro perspective, November 2024. This material represents an assessment of the market environment at a specific time and is not intended to be a forecast or guarantee of future results. This information should not be relied upon as investment advice regarding any particular fund, strategy or security.\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \n\ud83c\udfdb\u2b06\ufe0f Will The S&P 500 (INDEXSP:.INX) Close Lower Than 4,499.99 At Any Point During Q2-Q4 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"S&P 500 technical analysis forecast Q2-Q4 2024\"", "search_results": "And yet the S&P 500 returned an average 11% per year (more than 4,000% on a cumulative basis) in that time. Investors who stay the course through bouts of volatility can be rewarded \u2015 sometimes quickly as was the case this August. Corrections are common S&P 500 largest intra-year drawdowns, 1989-2024 (Date published: Sep 25, 2024)\n\nS&P Global Ratings expects the U.S. economy to expand 2.7% in 2024 and 1.8% in 2025 (on an annual average basis). The growth forecasts are 0.2 and 0.1 percentage point higher, respectively, compared with our June forecasts, partly reflecting the impulse from financial conditions that turned more positive and partly on stronger core goods consumption than previously expected. On a year-end ... (Date published: Sep 24, 2024)\n\nWhat they\u2019ll do is they\u2019ll come up with some sort of model or algorithm to forecast S&P 500 earnings, apply some sort of forward multiple to it, and to me, that always seems to be more of an ... (Date published: Oct 14, 2024)\n\nThe Atlanta Fed's GDPNow tool's forecast of annualized real GDP growth rate during 2024-Q2 dropped to +2.7% from the +3.5% growth projected a week earlier. Meanwhile, the BEA's estimate of ... (Date published: Jun 3, 2024)\n\nNote: Views are from a euro perspective, November 2024. This material represents an assessment of the market environment at a specific time and is not intended to be a forecast or guarantee of future results. This information should not be relied upon as investment advice regarding any particular fund, strategy or security."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The Zangezur Corridor is a proposed transport route through southern Armenia connecting Azerbaijan to its exclave Nakhchivan\n2. As of October 2024, complex geopolitical struggles involve multiple powers including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey, and Russia\n3. Russian weakness due to the Ukraine war has reduced its ability to influence regional dynamics\n4. Azerbaijan appears to have shown flexibility by considering Iran route alternatives as of January 2024\n5. Control can be achieved either through military presence or negotiated administrative control with demilitarization\n6. Russia historically aimed to control transit routes between Armenia and Azerbaijan\n7. The corridor would create a sanctions-proof connection between Iran/Turkey and Russia\n8. Recent history shows Azerbaijan's willingness to use military force to achieve territorial objectives (e.g. Nagorno-Karabakh)\n\n\n\n1. Armenia views the corridor as a threat to its sovereignty and territorial integrity (8/10)\n2. International pressure may prevent Azerbaijan from taking aggressive action (6/10)\n3. Time constraint - only one month remains in 2024 to achieve control (9/10)\n4. Alternative routes through Iran reduce urgency for Azerbaijan (7/10)\n5. Russia, despite weakened position, still has interests in preventing complete Azerbaijani control (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Azerbaijan's recent military success in Nagorno-Karabakh demonstrates capability and willingness to act (7/10)\n2. Russian weakness reduces external constraints on Azerbaijan (8/10)\n3. Turkey's support strengthens Azerbaijan's position (6/10)\n4. Azerbaijan has shown flexibility in negotiations, increasing chances of diplomatic solution (5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration is the extremely short timeframe remaining (one month). Even if Azerbaijan has both the capability and intention to gain control, executing either a military or diplomatic solution in such a compressed timeframe would be extremely challenging.\n\nThe situation appears to be in a relative stasis, with no immediate indicators of imminent military action or breakthrough negotiations. While Azerbaijan has demonstrated both military capability and diplomatic flexibility, the extreme time constraint dominates other considerations.\n\nThe presence of alternative routes (through Iran) reduces the immediate pressure for Azerbaijan to force a solution by year-end.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nA base rate consideration would be how often territorial disputes are resolved within one-month timeframes - this is extremely rare outside of active military conflicts or pre-arranged diplomatic agreements, neither of which appear to be imminent.\n\nThe short timeframe means this is effectively a conjunction of:\n1. Azerbaijan deciding to take action (military or diplomatic)\n2. Successfully executing that action\n3. Completing the process before December 31\n\nEach of these steps has significant uncertainty, and their multiplication yields a low probability.\n\nMy initial forecast may actually be too high given the extreme time constraint. While Azerbaijan has demonstrated both capability and willingness to act decisively, there's no indication they're positioning for immediate action, and diplomatic solutions typically take months to negotiate and implement.\n\n\n*0.08*", "probability": 0.08, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/SemioticRivalry/will-azerbaijan-control-the-zangezu", "market_probability": 0.09690440187036073, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Azerbaijan control the Zangezur Corridor by EOY 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zangezur_corridor\n\nIf Azerbaijan controls it at any time by 12/31/2024, this will resolve yes, even if Armenia later takes it back. \n\nAs I would like to bet in this market, in the event of controversy, I will consult several trustworthy-ish users to determine the resolution. \n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- mario pasquato (2023-10-22): Would Turkish control count? \n- Semiotic Rivalry (2023-10-22): No\n- mario pasquato (2023-10-22): Great, and by \u201ccontrol\u201d you mean troops from Azerbaijan must be stationed along the route?\n- Semiotic Rivalry (2023-10-22): That would most likely be the result, though it is plausible that they gain control via negotiation and it remains demilitarized, which would also count as yes. As long as Azerbaijan administers the area I will count it.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- This statement put Russia in a difficult position, as it had aimed to control the transit routes between Armenia and Azerbaijan, according to the November 10, 2020 trilateral statement signed by ... (Date published: Sep 10, 2024)\n- Azerbaijan\u2019s readiness to accept the Iran route could even elicit support in Moscow, which has long been seen as a backer of the Zangezur Corridor. Above all, Russia is interested in restoring its rail connections with Iran and Turkey that existed in Soviet times, and either route would work for those purposes. (Date published: Jan 23, 2024)\n- Outside of Armenian sovereign control, a Zangezur corridor would comprise a much-sought final missing link in a sanctions-proof, extraterritorial nexus connecting Iran and Turkey to Russia via ... (Date published: Nov 2, 2023)\n- The Zangezur Corridor lies at the heart of a complex geopolitical struggle involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey, Russia, and other global powers, centere ... South Caucasus and a Tough Test for Russian-Iranian Relations. 2024-10-08 ... and Azerbaijanis have led to wars and shifts in control, the Zangezur Corridor represents a new chapter ... (Date published: Oct 8, 2024)\n- A Russian win in Ukraine would make it easier for Russia to oust Pashinyan and draw Armenia closer once again and in that situation deter aggression from Turkey and Azerbaijan but with the cost of ... (Date published: Jan 10, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Azerbaijan control the Zangezur Corridor by EOY 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Azerbaijan Zangezur Corridor control Armenia Russia 2024\"", "search_results": "This statement put Russia in a difficult position, as it had aimed to control the transit routes between Armenia and Azerbaijan, according to the November 10, 2020 trilateral statement signed by ... (Date published: Sep 10, 2024)\n\nAzerbaijan\u2019s readiness to accept the Iran route could even elicit support in Moscow, which has long been seen as a backer of the Zangezur Corridor. Above all, Russia is interested in restoring its rail connections with Iran and Turkey that existed in Soviet times, and either route would work for those purposes. (Date published: Jan 23, 2024)\n\nOutside of Armenian sovereign control, a Zangezur corridor would comprise a much-sought final missing link in a sanctions-proof, extraterritorial nexus connecting Iran and Turkey to Russia via ... (Date published: Nov 2, 2023)\n\nThe Zangezur Corridor lies at the heart of a complex geopolitical struggle involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey, Russia, and other global powers, centere ... South Caucasus and a Tough Test for Russian-Iranian Relations. 2024-10-08 ... and Azerbaijanis have led to wars and shifts in control, the Zangezur Corridor represents a new chapter ... (Date published: Oct 8, 2024)\n\nA Russian win in Ukraine would make it easier for Russia to oust Pashinyan and draw Armenia closer once again and in that situation deter aggression from Turkey and Azerbaijan but with the cost of ... (Date published: Jan 10, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Recent leaks (Sept 2024) show hardware images of what appears to be the Switch 2\n2. The device appears larger than original Switch with an 8-inch display\n3. USB-C ports visible on both top and bottom\n4. Performance expected between PS4 and PS4 Pro in handheld mode\n5. Design appears to follow Switch's hybrid concept\n6. Original Switch and Switch OLED do not have integrated microphones\n7. Market resolution requires microphone to be integrated into base hardware/Joy-Cons\n8. Modern gaming consoles (PS5, Xbox Series) include microphone capabilities\n9. Nintendo has historically been conservative about online/social features\n10. Nintendo previously included microphones in DS/3DS handhelds\n\n\n\n1. Nintendo's historical emphasis on \"safe\" family gaming environments makes them cautious about voice chat features (7/10)\n2. Current Switch ecosystem relies on smartphone app for voice chat, suggesting Nintendo prefers keeping voice features separate (8/10)\n3. No microphone mentions in any of the recent leaks despite detailed hardware information (6/10)\n4. Additional hardware components increase cost and complexity (4/10)\n5. Privacy concerns around integrated microphones could make Nintendo hesitant (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Modern gaming increasingly expects voice chat capabilities built-in (6/10)\n2. Nintendo has precedent with integrated microphones in their handheld systems (5/10)\n3. Larger device size could accommodate additional components more easily (3/10)\n4. Competition from Steam Deck and other handhelds which include microphones (4/10)\n5. Could enable Nintendo-style creative gameplay mechanics beyond just chat (4/10)\n\n\n\nThe strongest evidence points against integration. Nintendo's current approach of using a smartphone app for voice chat represents a deliberate strategy rather than a technical limitation. This suggests they see value in keeping voice features separate from the core hardware.\n\nThe lack of microphone mentions in recent detailed hardware leaks is particularly telling. While not definitive, hardware leaks often reveal such features, especially this close to likely release.\n\nNintendo's conservative approach to online features and privacy considerations provides additional weight against integration. Their primary market includes young children, making them especially cautious about features that could enable unwanted communication.\n\nThe yes case relies mainly on industry trends and competitive pressure, but Nintendo has historically been willing to buck such trends when it aligns with their philosophy.\n\n\n0.25\n\n\nReviewing this forecast requires considering base rates. While integrated microphones are common in modern gaming devices, Nintendo has consistently deviated from industry standards when it comes to online/communication features.\n\nThe resolution criteria requiring integration in the base hardware/Joy-Cons (rather than optional accessories) makes the bar higher. Nintendo tends to prefer optional accessories for features they're uncertain about.\n\nMy confidence in the low probability is supported by:\n1. Clear historical precedent of Nintendo's approach to voice chat\n2. Absence of microphone mentions in detailed leaks\n3. Alignment with Nintendo's family-friendly philosophy\n4. Explicit resolution criteria requiring base hardware integration\n\nThe main uncertainty comes from Nintendo potentially changing their strategy, but their conservative approach to such features has been consistent across multiple generations.\n\n\n*0.22*", "probability": 0.22, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/marktwse/nintendo-switch-2-integrates-a-micr", "market_probability": 0.5513409137845764, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nNintendo Switch 2 integrates a microphone.\n \n**Description:**\nThis is about the next generation Nintendo console. It maybe be called \"Switch 2\" or whatever. Close date might be extended.\n\nResolves YES if the title statement is true. \n\nResolves NO if there is no microphone in a Switch 2.\n\nThe use cases of the microphone are not relevant here. Could be voice chat, sound-based games, voice control, or whatever.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Josh (2024-06-12): I'm guessing that this resolves YES if it's integrated into the equivalent of the JoyCons that ship with the console, and NO if it's a separate accessory and/or only integrated into a different model of JoyCon that doesn't come in the box? Is that accurate, or would you resolve those cases differently?\n- Marktwse (2024-06-13): Yes, that feels like a reasonable boundary of \u201cintegrates\u201d to me. \n- Anathema (2024-06-19): What\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Last week\u2019s Nintendo Switch 2 leak that includes photos of what looks like actual hardware is \u201calmost certainly real,\u201d the tech experts at Digital Foundry have said.\n- Multiple images of the console itself, including a side-by-side comparison with the original Nintendo Switch. The new system appears noticeably larger, with USB-C ports on both the top and bottom. (Date published: Sep 18, 2024)\n- Otherwise, the Switch 2 will allegedly feature an 8-inch display, one inch bigger than the current OLED console and the 6.2-inch original. This gives credence to the larger-looking console in the ... (Date published: Sep 24, 2024)\n- 11; MitchaK; Wed 18th Sep 2024 @BIG3 supposed spec leak- \u2060Handheld: Right above PS4* before DLSS \u2060Docked: Between PS4 Pro* & Xbox Series S* before DLSS with more modern hardware than the former (Date published: Sep 18, 2024)\n- Here are the facts, the rumors, and our predictions for the Nintendo Switch 2. ... of-left-field rumors about Nintendo's newest system wildly bucking the Switch's design, so that's a good ... (Date published: Nov 21, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nNintendo Switch 2 integrates a microphone.\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Nintendo Switch 2 integrated microphone specs rumor\"", "search_results": "Last week\u2019s Nintendo Switch 2 leak that includes photos of what looks like actual hardware is \u201calmost certainly real,\u201d the tech experts at Digital Foundry have said.\n\nMultiple images of the console itself, including a side-by-side comparison with the original Nintendo Switch. The new system appears noticeably larger, with USB-C ports on both the top and bottom. (Date published: Sep 18, 2024)\n\nOtherwise, the Switch 2 will allegedly feature an 8-inch display, one inch bigger than the current OLED console and the 6.2-inch original. This gives credence to the larger-looking console in the ... (Date published: Sep 24, 2024)\n\n11; MitchaK; Wed 18th Sep 2024 @BIG3 supposed spec leak- \u2060Handheld: Right above PS4* before DLSS \u2060Docked: Between PS4 Pro* & Xbox Series S* before DLSS with more modern hardware than the former (Date published: Sep 18, 2024)\n\nHere are the facts, the rumors, and our predictions for the Nintendo Switch 2. ... of-left-field rumors about Nintendo's newest system wildly bucking the Switch's design, so that's a good ... (Date published: Nov 21, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Facebook has 3.03-3.07 billion monthly active users (MAU) as of late 2024\n2. Facebook's closest competitors include YouTube, WhatsApp, and Instagram\n3. Meta owns Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook Messenger - all with >1B users\n4. TikTok reported 1.5B users (as of Sep 2023), growing rapidly but still significantly behind\n5. Some recent data suggests YouTube may have overtaken Facebook in active users according to data.ai metrics\n6. Social platforms are increasingly pivoting to short-form video content to compete\n7. The question resolves based on MAU (Monthly Active Users) per comments\n8. Only 1 month remains in the resolution period (Dec 2024)\n\n\n\n1. Facebook's massive 3B+ user base provides significant inertia and network effects (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Very short remaining time window (1 month) makes dramatic shifts unlikely (Strength: 9/10)\n3. Facebook's integration with Meta's other platforms helps retain users through cross-platform network effects (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Recent data still shows Facebook leading in most metrics (Strength: 7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Data.ai suggests YouTube may have already surpassed Facebook in active users (Strength: 7/10)\n2. Younger users strongly prefer other platforms, suggesting momentum against Facebook (Strength: 5/10)\n3. Short-form video trends favor YouTube/TikTok over Facebook's traditional format (Strength: 4/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is the very short timeframe - just December 2024 remains. For the prediction to resolve YES, we need:\n1. Another platform to definitively surpass Facebook in MAU\n2. This to be verified/reported before Dec 31\n\nThe data.ai report suggesting YouTube leads is significant, but:\n- We don't know their methodology\n- Other recent sources still show Facebook leading\n- MAU metrics can vary by measurement approach\n- The resolution requires clear evidence\n\nThe extremely short timeframe strongly constrains the probability of meaningful changes in user bases of this scale occurring AND being officially reported within just one month.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n\n1. Base rates: Social media platform leadership changes are rare, typically occurring over years rather than months\n\n2. Data quality:\n- MAU numbers can be opaque and differently measured across platforms\n- Platform-reported numbers may have different definitions/methodologies\n- Third-party measurements like data.ai use sampling/estimates\n\n3. Timing dynamics:\n- Even if YouTube has actually surpassed Facebook, official confirmation within December specifically would be needed\n- Year-end reporting typically comes in Q1 of the following year\n- Platforms often delay or obscure negative metrics\n\nThe extremely short timeframe is the dominant factor here. Even if Facebook is on a trajectory to lose its lead, the probability of this being definitively demonstrated in the specific month of December 2024 is quite low. My initial estimate of 0.15 appears reasonable given these constraints.\n\n\n*0.15*", "probability": 0.15, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/WyattStanke/will-facebook-no-longer-be-the-most", "market_probability": 0.09541247155186064, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Facebook no longer be the most popular social media platform at any point before the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- yk (2023-09-08): How do you measure popularity? MAU?\n- Wyatt Stanke (2023-09-08): Correct\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Meta Platforms owns four of the biggest social media platforms, all with more than one billion monthly active users each: Facebook (core platform), WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram.\n- That concludes our list of the world's most popular social media networks. Big brands like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube have all pivoted to short-form video content to keep users engaged, like TikTok. This content and messaging apps like Telegram, Whatsapp, and Discord are growing and popular and worth keeping an eye on throughout 2024. (Date published: Nov 12, 2024)\n- According to the latest reported numbers, Facebook, at 3.03b users, still leads the way, followed by YouTube , Instagram , and WhatsApp . As you can see, TikTok ( 1.5b ) is still a way behind those top players, but it is growing fast, and it may be that TikTok is now even closer, though there\u2019s been no official confirmation beyond this stat. (Date published: Sep 23, 2023)\n- The world\u2019s most used social media platforms. App intelligence from data.ai suggests that YouTube has the greatest number of active users today, giving the platform an index of 100 [note that the top platform in this ranking will always have an index of 100].. WhatsApp and Facebook rank second and third (respectively), with this data suggesting that Meta\u2019s top messaging platform has a ...\n- Social media platform: MAU* 1: Facebook: 3.07 billion: ... users worldwide updated September 2024. The Top 10 Social Media Sites And Platforms ... as much attention as the likes of Instagram and ... (Date published: Sep 18, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Facebook no longer be the most popular social media platform at any point before the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Social media platform MAU rankings 2024 Facebook TikTok Instagram\"", "search_results": "Meta Platforms owns four of the biggest social media platforms, all with more than one billion monthly active users each: Facebook (core platform), WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram.\n\nThat concludes our list of the world's most popular social media networks. Big brands like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube have all pivoted to short-form video content to keep users engaged, like TikTok. This content and messaging apps like Telegram, Whatsapp, and Discord are growing and popular and worth keeping an eye on throughout 2024. (Date published: Nov 12, 2024)\n\nAccording to the latest reported numbers, Facebook, at 3.03b users, still leads the way, followed by YouTube , Instagram , and WhatsApp . As you can see, TikTok ( 1.5b ) is still a way behind those top players, but it is growing fast, and it may be that TikTok is now even closer, though there\u2019s been no official confirmation beyond this stat. (Date published: Sep 23, 2023)\n\nThe world\u2019s most used social media platforms. App intelligence from data.ai suggests that YouTube has the greatest number of active users today, giving the platform an index of 100 [note that the top platform in this ranking will always have an index of 100].. WhatsApp and Facebook rank second and third (respectively), with this data suggesting that Meta\u2019s top messaging platform has a ...\n\nSocial media platform: MAU* 1: Facebook: 3.07 billion: ... users worldwide updated September 2024. The Top 10 Social Media Sites And Platforms ... as much attention as the likes of Instagram and ... (Date published: Sep 18, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Manifold Markets runs poker nights where users can participate and incur debts\n2. The question resolves YES if someone defaults on a poker payment from these Manifold poker nights\n3. Current market probability is 33%\n4. The timeframe is limited to 2024, with only 1 month remaining\n5. The poker community generally has some history of debt disputes, as evidenced by the Tom Dwan/Peter Jetten dispute in March 2024\n6. Manifold uses both play money ('mana') and 'Sweepcash' which can be withdrawn as real money\n\n\n\n1. Community reputation matters significantly in prediction market communities, making default less likely (8/10)\n2. Only one month remains in 2024, limiting the opportunity for defaults to occur (7/10)\n3. Manifold poker nights likely involve relatively small stakes compared to professional poker, reducing incentive to default (6/10)\n4. Players who participate in prediction markets tend to be more analytical and understand expected value/long-term relationships (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Poker inherently creates opportunities for losses that players might not be prepared to pay (5/10)\n2. Online communities can enable easier disappearance/defaulting compared to in-person environments (4/10)\n3. Financial stress during holiday season (December) might increase likelihood of default (3/10)\n4. The existence of both play money and real money systems could create confusion or disputes about which was being used (2/10)\n\n\n\nThe key interaction here is between the very short remaining timeframe (1 month) and the inherent characteristics of the Manifold community. The community aspects strongly suggest lower default risk than typical poker environments, as reputation and continued participation are valuable.\n\nThe remaining time is particularly crucial - we're not forecasting for a full year, but just December 2024. This significantly reduces the opportunity for a default to occur. Additionally, the Manifold community seems tight-knit enough that reputation costs would be substantial.\n\nThe existence of both play money and real money systems actually probably reduces default risk, as it suggests the presence of established payment systems and community norms around transactions.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nLet's check this against some base rates and priors:\n1. General poker default rates are likely higher, but Manifold's community characteristics justify a lower rate\n2. The one-month timeframe is a strong limiting factor - even if the annual rate were 50%, the monthly rate would be much lower\n3. The requirement for the default to be specifically from Manifold poker nights (not just any poker debt among users) further constrains the possibility\n\nThe key factors that most influence my final forecast are:\n- The extremely short remaining timeframe\n- The community reputation effects\n- The likely small stakes involved\n- The specific requirement that it be from Manifold poker nights\n\nIf anything, my initial forecast might still be slightly high given these constraints.\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/AmmonLam/will-some-manifold-user-run-away-fr", "market_probability": 0.20308078149607423, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill a Manifold user run away from a poker debt in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nResolves Yes if someone defaults on a poker payment from one of the Manifold poker nights. \n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Resolves Yes if someone defaults on a poker payment from one of the Manifold poker nights. MANIFOLD. Browse News About App. Add funds (Sale 64% off) Sign up. Get. 1,000. and. 3.00. Dark Light (auto) Sign in. Open options. Will a Manifold user run away from a poker debt in 2024? Ammon Lam. Basic. 10. \u1e40161. Jan 1. 33%. chance. 1D. 1W. 1M. ALL ...\n- Tom Dwan has been in the limelight lately because he got into a heated dispute with fellow poker player Peter Jetten. The saga, marked by allegations and counteraccusations, has sparked a frenzy of speculation and debate within the poker community. ... March 9, 2024. There were a bunch of times I told you that u weren\u2019t being fair. 2 of the ... (Date published: Mar 9, 2024)\n- 58% chance. Does not count existing loans prior to, or on April 30. The total negative balance must sum to at least -10000 mana, excluding loan repayments for loans made prior to the April 30 changes. I will exclude payouts made as a result of sales of shares bought prior to the changes. Things that would count: N/A backed p2p loans causing a user to massively lose mana Defaulting under a new ...\n- Will a Manifold user run away from a poker debt in 2024? Ammon Lam. 33% chance. Will there be an insider betting/ trading scandal on Manifold before the end of 2024? Carl Levitt. 30% chance. Will a Manifold mod blatantly abuse their power by the end of 2024? Isaac King. 27% chance.\n- Manifold, formerly known as Manifold Markets, is an online prediction market platform. [1] [2] Users engage in competitive forecasting using play money called 'mana', as well as 'Sweepcash,' which can be withdrawn for real money, or donated to charity. [3]Topics on Manifold have included the 2024 United States presidential election and the Oscars. [4] ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill a Manifold user run away from a poker debt in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Manifold poker debt default 2024 incident\"", "search_results": "Resolves Yes if someone defaults on a poker payment from one of the Manifold poker nights. MANIFOLD. Browse News About App. Add funds (Sale 64% off) Sign up. Get. 1,000. and. 3.00. Dark Light (auto) Sign in. Open options. Will a Manifold user run away from a poker debt in 2024? Ammon Lam. Basic. 10. \u1e40161. Jan 1. 33%. chance. 1D. 1W. 1M. ALL ...\n\nTom Dwan has been in the limelight lately because he got into a heated dispute with fellow poker player Peter Jetten. The saga, marked by allegations and counteraccusations, has sparked a frenzy of speculation and debate within the poker community. ... March 9, 2024. There were a bunch of times I told you that u weren\u2019t being fair. 2 of the ... (Date published: Mar 9, 2024)\n\n58% chance. Does not count existing loans prior to, or on April 30. The total negative balance must sum to at least -10000 mana, excluding loan repayments for loans made prior to the April 30 changes. I will exclude payouts made as a result of sales of shares bought prior to the changes. Things that would count: N/A backed p2p loans causing a user to massively lose mana Defaulting under a new ...\n\nWill a Manifold user run away from a poker debt in 2024? Ammon Lam. 33% chance. Will there be an insider betting/ trading scandal on Manifold before the end of 2024? Carl Levitt. 30% chance. Will a Manifold mod blatantly abuse their power by the end of 2024? Isaac King. 27% chance.\n\nManifold, formerly known as Manifold Markets, is an online prediction market platform. [1] [2] Users engage in competitive forecasting using play money called 'mana', as well as 'Sweepcash,' which can be withdrawn for real money, or donated to charity. [3]Topics on Manifold have included the 2024 United States presidential election and the Oscars. [4] ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The person asking is 23 years old (as of Aug 2023)\n2. They attended 2 weddings in 2023, but none in the decade before\n3. Neither of the 2023 weddings were expected/known at the start of that year\n4. As of Aug 11 2024, they had received no wedding invites for 2024\n5. Most of their friends are around their age (early 20s)\n6. The original question was asked in Aug 2023\n7. Trends show Gen-Z is heavily involved in wedding planning via social media\n8. There's typically a \"wedding season\" which was wrapping up by Aug 11 2024\n9. They've confirmed they would count attending their own wedding\n\n\n\n1. No invites received by August 2024, well into wedding season (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Early 20s is still relatively young for weddings, with most people marrying later (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Historical pattern shows very low wedding attendance (0 in previous decade) suggesting small social network of marriage-ready couples (Strength: 6/10)\n4. The 2023 weddings might have been an unusual spike rather than a new pattern (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\n1. The recent attendance of two weddings suggests they're entering an age/social phase where their peers are beginning to marry (Strength: 6/10)\n2. Their own wedding would count, and they're of marriageable age (Strength: 3/10)\n3. December assessment allows for last-minute winter holiday season weddings (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here is between the strong negative signal of no invites by August 2024 versus the recent pattern of unexpected wedding attendance in 2023. The August update significantly reduces the probability, as most weddings are planned well in advance and the prime wedding season was ending.\n\nThe case can be broken down into:\n1. Pre-existing invites (we know this is 0)\n2. Late 2024 invites (very unlikely given timing)\n3. Their own wedding (possible but no indication of plans)\n\nThe 2023 weddings being unexpected initially seemed like a positive signal, but upon reflection, this actually weakens the case for 2024 - it suggests these were unusual events rather than part of a sustained pattern of regular wedding attendance.\n\nThe person's age and social circle being mostly early 20s suggests they're still at the early edge of the typical wedding attendance phase of life, making multiple consecutive years of weddings less likely.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nLet's consider some additional context:\n- The base rate for wedding attendance in any given year for early 20s individuals is relatively low\n- The fact that they had no weddings for a decade, then two in 2023, suggests 2023 was an outlier rather than a new normal\n- The August update is particularly strong evidence, as most 2024 weddings would be planned and invites sent by then\n- December is typically less common for weddings due to weather and holiday conflicts\n- The possibility of their own wedding seems remote given no mention of relationship status or engagement\n\nThe 0.15 probability feels appropriate given these factors. It's low enough to reflect the strong negative signal from the August update and typical base rates, while leaving some probability for unexpected late invites or very unlikely scenarios like their own wedding.\n\nA key uncertainty is whether we're underweighting the significance of entering the \"wedding years\" of their social circle, but the August update helps resolve this - if this were the case, we would expect to see some 2024 invites by then.\n\n\n*0.15*", "probability": 0.15, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/derikk/will-i-attend-any-weddings-in-2024", "market_probability": 0.1644645820396537, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill I attend any weddings in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nI've been invited to two so far in 2023 (and attended them both), but none in the decade before then. \n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Andrew G (2023-08-05): Does attending your own wedding count?\n- Derik K (2023-08-05): Sure\n- Conflux (2023-08-05): How surprising was it for you to attend two weddings this year? Like, did you have friends/relatives that seemed on track to be getting married? Do you have any such friends/relatives now?\n- tigrennatenn (2023-08-05): How old are you? How old are most of your friends?\n- Derik K (2023-08-06): I did not expect to attend either of these at the start of this year; neither couple was engaged.\n- Derik K (2023-08-06): 23, and mostly around that age.\n- Derik K (2024-08-11): Still no invites, and the season for weddings is wrapping up\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- December 20, 2023 Meredith Rothman and ... When Vogue asked eight of the world\u2019s top event planners to share their predictions for 2024 wedding trends, one term kept popping up again, again, and ... (Date published: Dec 20, 2023)\n- And, 92% of Gen-Zers said that social media is an essential part of their planning process. 2024 Wedding Trends: Casual, garden-style weddings usher in green as the color-of-the-year. Welcome parties and destination weddings make a comeback. ... 20 Wedding Trends for 2023, from Audio Guest Books to DIY Sushi Bars; The First Look Report 2023 ... (Date published: Sep 29, 2024)\n- 2024 Wedding Trends. Now, onto the most fun stuff besides the parties themselves\u2013 a definitive look at the emerging trends for 2024. Celeb wedding content is getting more than 15 minutes of fame. In comparison to 2023, 48% more couples with weddings coming in 2024 have been directly influenced by influencer weddings. (Date published: Feb 7, 2024)\n- \"I expect to see a revival of many retro wedding trends in 2024,\" says Cameron Forbes, founder of Forbes Functions. \"From Super 8 mm film to vintage cakes with lots of heavy piping and icing, couples are leaning into the nostalgic and ethereal feel.\" (Date published: Jan 14, 2024)\n- 7. Hand Painted Guest Portraits for 2024 Wedding Trends wedding guest portraits by Spencer Grace Art. Couples want their wedding to be memorable not only for themselves but also for their guests. Live artist guest portraits offer a one-of-a-kind experience where attendees can have their portraits painted or sketched in real-time.\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill I attend any weddings in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "wedding trends for people in their mid-20s in 2024", "search_results": "December 20, 2023 Meredith Rothman and ... When Vogue asked eight of the world\u2019s top event planners to share their predictions for 2024 wedding trends, one term kept popping up again, again, and ... (Date published: Dec 20, 2023)\n\nAnd, 92% of Gen-Zers said that social media is an essential part of their planning process. 2024 Wedding Trends: Casual, garden-style weddings usher in green as the color-of-the-year. Welcome parties and destination weddings make a comeback. ... 20 Wedding Trends for 2023, from Audio Guest Books to DIY Sushi Bars; The First Look Report 2023 ... (Date published: Sep 29, 2024)\n\n2024 Wedding Trends. Now, onto the most fun stuff besides the parties themselves\u2013 a definitive look at the emerging trends for 2024. Celeb wedding content is getting more than 15 minutes of fame. In comparison to 2023, 48% more couples with weddings coming in 2024 have been directly influenced by influencer weddings. (Date published: Feb 7, 2024)\n\n\"I expect to see a revival of many retro wedding trends in 2024,\" says Cameron Forbes, founder of Forbes Functions. \"From Super 8 mm film to vintage cakes with lots of heavy piping and icing, couples are leaning into the nostalgic and ethereal feel.\" (Date published: Jan 14, 2024)\n\n7. Hand Painted Guest Portraits for 2024 Wedding Trends wedding guest portraits by Spencer Grace Art. Couples want their wedding to be memorable not only for themselves but also for their guests. Live artist guest portraits offer a one-of-a-kind experience where attendees can have their portraits painted or sketched in real-time."}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Lantern Bioworks has already threatened legal action against Trevor Klee regarding posts about Lumina\n2. The threat was made before May 20, 2024, as evidenced by Klee's posts about editing content to avoid libel threats\n3. Legal action is specifically defined as court filings, not just \"sternly worded letters from lawyers\"\n4. Klee has already modified his content in response to the threats, removing and then re-posting edited versions\n5. The market closes December 31, 2024, leaving about 1 month from today's date\n6. Lantern Bioworks was founded in 2023 and made deals with Oragenics for materials\n7. The situation involves posts about Lumina Probiotics, a product associated with Lantern Bioworks\n\n\n\n1. Klee has already complied with demands by editing his content, reducing motivation for legal action (8/10)\n2. Legal action is expensive and time-consuming, making it a last resort option (7/10)\n3. Filing a lawsuit could draw more attention to the criticism (Streisand effect) (6/10)\n4. Only one month remains in 2024, reducing the timeframe for action (8/10)\n5. Companies often use legal threats without following through, as a deterrence tactic (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Legal threats have already been made, showing serious intent (6/10)\n2. Biotech companies often aggressively protect their reputation due to reliance on investor confidence (5/10)\n3. Klee's modified posts might still be considered problematic by Lantern (4/10)\n4. Companies sometimes file suits near deadlines to maximize leverage (3/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here appears to be between Klee's compliance with the initial threats and Lantern's satisfaction with his modifications. The fact that Klee has already taken corrective action significantly reduces the likelihood of legal action, as companies typically achieve their desired outcome through threats alone.\n\nThe extremely short remaining timeframe (1 month) is particularly significant. Legal action typically requires preparation time, and starting a lawsuit in December would be unusual unless already in advanced preparation stages.\n\nThe base rate for threatened legal action actually resulting in filed lawsuits is likely quite low, especially when the threatened party has already made concessions. Companies often use legal threats as a tool for compliance rather than with genuine intent to litigate.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing my initial assessment:\n\n1. Base rates: Studies suggest that only a small percentage (typically <20%) of legal threats result in actual lawsuits, and this rate drops significantly when the threatened party complies.\n\n2. Time pressure: The one-month window is extremely constraining. If Lantern was going to file, they likely would have done so earlier in the year, especially given that the threats were made before May.\n\n3. Cost-benefit analysis: Given Klee's compliance, Lantern would need to see significant additional benefit from filing a lawsuit to justify the costs and potential negative publicity.\n\nHowever, I may be slightly underestimating the likelihood given that:\n- We know the threat was serious enough to cause Klee to modify content\n- Biotech companies can be particularly aggressive about reputation management\n- The definition excludes lesser forms of legal action, focusing only on actual filings\n\nStill, the combination of Klee's compliance, the extremely short remaining timeframe, and typical base rates for threat-to-filing conversion suggest my initial estimate is reasonable, though perhaps slightly low.\n\n\n*0.18*", "probability": 0.18, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/manic_pixie_agi/will-lantern-bioworks-or-any-affili", "market_probability": 0.037722772402040326, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Lantern Bioworks or any affiliates take legal action against Trevor Klee in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nLantern Bioworks has threatened legal action against Trevor Klee for his posts about Lumina. Will they or anyone affiliated with Latern Bioworks make good on that threat by the end of 2024?\n\nhttps://trevorklee.substack.com/p/luminas-legal-threats-and-my-about\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- James Baker (2024-06-04): Clarification request: legal action would not include \"sternly worded letters from a lawyer\" and would include a court filing of a suit.\n- Corinne (2024-06-04): that's a good clarification, thank you. A sternly worded letter would not count but a court filing would.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- May 20, 2024. 40. Share this post. Trevor Klee\u2019s Newsletter. My about-face on Lumina. Copy link. Facebook. Email. Notes. More. 25. 4. Share. I\u2019m putting the post about Lumina Probiotics back up, now edited to avoid any possible threats of libel. To explain, here\u2019s a timeline of my last 72 hours. ... Liked by Trevor Klee. Thanks for ... (Date published: May 20, 2024)\n- In 2023, Silverbook founded Lantern Bioworks, which made a deal with Oragenics, the company Hillman co-founded and that owned the technology, for the materials. Lantern Bioworks then launched the ... (Date published: Apr 20, 2024)\n- May 20, 2024. 12. Share this post. Trevor Klee\u2019s Newsletter. Updates on Lumina Probiotic. Copy link. Facebook. Email. Notes. ... Liked by Trevor Klee. Wish you would keep the original post up. It\u2019s important work. Expand full comment. Reply. Share. 4 more comments... Top. Latest. Discussions. No posts. Ready for more? (Date published: May 20, 2024)\n- Lantern Bioworks has threatened legal action against Trevor Klee for his posts about Lumina. Will they or anyone affiliated with Latern Bioworks make good on that threat by the end of 2024? ... Will Lantern Bioworks or any affiliates take legal action against Trevor Klee in 2024? #Lantern Bioworks. Corinne. 1. 5.\n- 37% chance. @/strutheo/will-lantern-bioworks-be-sued-over @/strutheo/will-lantern-bioworks-be-acquired-b @/strutheo/will-lantern-bioworks-lumina-treatm-f33e1b4d0184\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Lantern Bioworks or any affiliates take legal action against Trevor Klee in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Trevor Klee Lantern Bioworks lawsuit status 2024", "search_results": "May 20, 2024. 40. Share this post. Trevor Klee\u2019s Newsletter. My about-face on Lumina. Copy link. Facebook. Email. Notes. More. 25. 4. Share. I\u2019m putting the post about Lumina Probiotics back up, now edited to avoid any possible threats of libel. To explain, here\u2019s a timeline of my last 72 hours. ... Liked by Trevor Klee. Thanks for ... (Date published: May 20, 2024)\n\nIn 2023, Silverbook founded Lantern Bioworks, which made a deal with Oragenics, the company Hillman co-founded and that owned the technology, for the materials. Lantern Bioworks then launched the ... (Date published: Apr 20, 2024)\n\nMay 20, 2024. 12. Share this post. Trevor Klee\u2019s Newsletter. Updates on Lumina Probiotic. Copy link. Facebook. Email. Notes. ... Liked by Trevor Klee. Wish you would keep the original post up. It\u2019s important work. Expand full comment. Reply. Share. 4 more comments... Top. Latest. Discussions. No posts. Ready for more? (Date published: May 20, 2024)\n\nLantern Bioworks has threatened legal action against Trevor Klee for his posts about Lumina. Will they or anyone affiliated with Latern Bioworks make good on that threat by the end of 2024? ... Will Lantern Bioworks or any affiliates take legal action against Trevor Klee in 2024? #Lantern Bioworks. Corinne. 1. 5.\n\n37% chance. @/strutheo/will-lantern-bioworks-be-sued-over @/strutheo/will-lantern-bioworks-be-acquired-b @/strutheo/will-lantern-bioworks-lumina-treatm-f33e1b4d0184"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The tweet in question was posted on March 18, 2024 (based on URL timestamp)\n2. There are only ~30 days left in 2024 to resolve this prediction\n3. Tyler Cowen regularly writes columns, blog posts, and maintains an active social media presence\n4. Tyler Cowen has previously complained about similar tweets/positions in the past (mentioned in description)\n5. The linked tweet appears to be about China (based on description context)\n6. Cowen writes frequently about China and technology issues\n7. Cowen continues to be active in late 2024 based on recent publication dates in search results\n\n\n\n1. Very short time window remaining in 2024 (8/10)\n2. The specific tweet may not be noteworthy enough to draw Cowen's attention among countless other China-related discussions (7/10)\n3. Even if Cowen sees and disagrees with the tweet, he may choose not to publicly engage with it (6/10)\n4. Many tweets that seem controversial or notable at first fade quickly without gaining broader attention (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Cowen has precedent of engaging with similar content critically (6/10)\n2. China-related discussions are a key area of interest for Cowen (5/10)\n3. The tweet appears to be about China policy/safety concerns, which are topics Cowen frequently discusses (4/10)\n4. Cowen remains actively publishing and engaging with current topics through end of 2024 (3/10)\n\n\n\nThe key tension here is between the very short remaining time window (which significantly reduces probability) and Cowen's established pattern of engaging with similar content. The time constraint is particularly binding - there are only about 30 days left in 2024 for this to occur.\n\nThe conditional probability structure is important here:\n1. Cowen needs to see/become aware of the tweet\n2. He needs to consider it worth responding to\n3. He needs to actually publish a response\n4. All within ~30 days\n\nEach step reduces probability, making this a conjunctive event with multiple required conditions.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing my initial estimate through the lens of base rates:\n- How often does Cowen respond to specific tweets in general? Likely less than weekly\n- What proportion of seemingly notable tweets actually get broader engagement? Very small\n- How many opportunities remain in 2024? About 30 days\n\nThe short time window is the dominant factor here. Even if Cowen would eventually respond to this tweet with 50% probability (which seems high), the compressed timeframe significantly reduces the chances.\n\nHowever, I notice I may be underweighting:\n- Cowen's specific interest in China-related topics\n- His demonstrated willingness to engage with similar content\n- The possibility that the tweet gains traction in broader discussion\n\nStill, the conjunctive nature of required events and extremely short timeframe suggest a low probability is appropriate.\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/ZviMowshowitz/will-tyler-cowen-complain-about-thi", "market_probability": 0.1335950428654007, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Tyler Cowen complain about this particular tweet in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nLink is here: https://twitter.com/Simeon_Cps/status/1769805514706125071\n\nResolves YES if anyone can point and link to or can credibly testify to an example of him complaining about the linked Tweet, or citing it as an example of how people are wrong about China, or use it to otherwise disparage any group or those concerned about safety.\n\nI ask because he has done this in the past in similar contexts.\n\nResolves NO if this does not happen.\n\nNote that I am not under any obligation to point out or seek out such a mention. This only resolves YES if I become aware of it anyway (which includes reading any comments here). \n\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of economics at George Mason University and host of the Marginal Revolution blog. Share this: Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) (Date published: Nov 14, 2024)\n- by Tyler Cowen November 28, 2024 at 11:36 am . 1. ... Twitter; RSS Feed; print; Comments Respond. Add Comment. Email. Author. Website. Comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. ... Tyler Cowen Email Tyler Follow @tylercowen. Webmaster Report an issue. Blogs We Like; Interesting People & Sites;\n- President Joe Biden is expected to issue an executive order next month restricting US investment in China, in part over concerns about US national security. Those concerns are valid, but the move would cede far too much arbitrary power to the federal government over capital flows and economic activity.. The policy will reportedly cover semiconductors, AI and quantum computing, and on the ... (Date published: Apr 30, 2023)\n- November 8, 2024 at 5:30 AM EST By Tyler Cowen Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of economics at George Mason University and host of the Marginal Revolution blog. (Date published: Nov 8, 2024)\n- Recorded May 20th, 2024. Read the full transcript. This transcript sponsorship is \u201cin honor of Emily Carlson Allred, 1933\u20132023, who had 9 children, 53 grandchildren, and currently has 93 great-grandchildren: Pronatalist before it was a thing.\u201d TYLER COWEN: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler. (Date published: Jun 12, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Tyler Cowen complain about this particular tweet in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Tyler Cowen tweet criticism China safety concerns 2024\"", "search_results": "Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of economics at George Mason University and host of the Marginal Revolution blog. Share this: Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) (Date published: Nov 14, 2024)\n\nby Tyler Cowen November 28, 2024 at 11:36 am . 1. ... Twitter; RSS Feed; print; Comments Respond. Add Comment. Email. Author. Website. Comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. ... Tyler Cowen Email Tyler Follow @tylercowen. Webmaster Report an issue. Blogs We Like; Interesting People & Sites;\n\nPresident Joe Biden is expected to issue an executive order next month restricting US investment in China, in part over concerns about US national security. Those concerns are valid, but the move would cede far too much arbitrary power to the federal government over capital flows and economic activity.. The policy will reportedly cover semiconductors, AI and quantum computing, and on the ... (Date published: Apr 30, 2023)\n\nNovember 8, 2024 at 5:30 AM EST By Tyler Cowen Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of economics at George Mason University and host of the Marginal Revolution blog. (Date published: Nov 8, 2024)\n\nRecorded May 20th, 2024. Read the full transcript. This transcript sponsorship is \u201cin honor of Emily Carlson Allred, 1933\u20132023, who had 9 children, 53 grandchildren, and currently has 93 great-grandchildren: Pronatalist before it was a thing.\u201d TYLER COWEN: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler. (Date published: Jun 12, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The market requires users to show evidence of working while mobile (walking/running), not just standing\n2. The work must be traditionally indoor, seated work\n3. Indoor work must be due to extrinsic factors (can't just choose to work indoors)\n4. The deadline is December 31, 2024 (about 1 month from now)\n5. Stephen Wolfram has documented using a treadmill desk at 2mph while working/in meetings\n6. One user reported typing emails/Slack messages while walking to train stations\n7. Multiple comments suggest skepticism about doing intellectual work while mobile\n8. The requirement is for 5 different users to provide credible evidence\n9. Some traditionally mobile jobs (construction, sandwich making) are explicitly excluded by criteria\n10. There are concerns about privacy/proof issues for workplace photos/evidence\n\n\n\n1. Very short timeframe (1 month) to get 5 different users (8/10)\n2. Most intellectual work requires focus and stability that walking inhibits (7/10)\n3. Documentation/proof requirements create additional friction for potential submissions (6/10)\n4. People who might qualify may be unwilling to share workplace evidence (5/10)\n5. Winter weather in northern hemisphere may discourage outdoor walking work (4/10)\n\n\n\n1. Only need 5 people globally to demonstrate this, and Wolfram proves it's possible (6/10)\n2. Some work tasks (calls, emails, light reading) are compatible with walking (5/10)\n3. Growing awareness of health impacts of sitting may motivate experimentation (3/10)\n4. Modern mobile technology makes working while walking increasingly feasible (4/10)\n5. Some users may already be doing this and just need to document it (3/10)\n\n\n\nThe core challenge here is the combination of:\n1. Very short timeframe (1 month)\n2. Need for 5 different users\n3. Strict criteria (must be traditionally seated work, truly mobile)\n4. Documentation requirements\n\nWhile Wolfram demonstrates this is possible, he represents a rare combination of:\n- Control over his work environment\n- Technical capability\n- Motivation to optimize productivity\n- Willingness to document and share\n\nThe market requires finding 5 such people who are both willing and able to provide evidence within just one month. Even if such people exist, the documentation requirements and short timeframe create significant friction.\n\nBase rate considerations: How many people globally attempt working while walking? Of those, how many do traditionally seated work? Of those, how many would see and engage with this market? The intersection seems very small.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n\n1. The very short timeframe is particularly constraining. Even if there are people doing this, coordinating 5 separate individuals to provide evidence in just one month is challenging.\n\n2. The \"traditionally indoor seated work\" requirement eliminates many potential cases that might initially seem to qualify.\n\n3. The evidence must be \"credible\" - this raises the bar significantly above merely claiming to do this.\n\n4. Winter conditions in much of the developed world during December may further reduce likelihood of outdoor walking work.\n\n5. While technology enables mobile work, the restriction to traditionally seated work types suggests most qualifying cases would need special setups like treadmill desks, which are rare.\n\nLooking at comparable prediction markets and base rates for \"N people must do X within Y time\" type questions, especially with strict criteria, they tend to resolve negative unless N is very small or Y is very long. One month for 5 people with strict criteria suggests my initial estimate may even be optimistic.\n\n\n*0.08*", "probability": 0.08, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/singer/will-5-users-post-credible-evidence-2343a06fea98", "market_probability": 0.37147160330278384, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill 5 users post credible evidence of not being stationary while working before 2025? [hard mode]\n \n**Description:**\nThis market is the \"hard mode\" version of @/singer/will-5-users-post-credible-evidence \n\nDifferences:\n\nIn this market \"sitting\" is replaced with \"not staying still\", and standing immobile becomes one of the prohibited postures. This practically leaves walking and running as the allowed postures for doing work.\n\nIf you are inside while working, it needs to be due to some reason extrinsic to the work setup.\n\nLike in the other market, the \"work has to be something that is done traditionally indoors while seated\".\n\nI will not bet in this market.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- komplexkonjugat (2024-02-06): I've tried \"working\" standing, it works for reading emails but as soon as I actually need to \\nwork\\n I \\nhave\\n to sit down. Same thing goes for \\nevery\\n colleague I've physically worked together with. Actually being \\nmobile\\n seems even more far fetched, so I'm going for NO. \n- singer (2024-02-06): In your opinion what is the first year you'd put this at 50/50?\n- komplexkonjugat (2024-02-06): Good question. No idea to be honest. Will thinkg about it and try to remember to get back to you.\n- Mark Hamill (2024-02-06): I\u2019ve typed out long emails and Slack messages while walking to the train station, it just can\u2019t be anything intellectual\n- \ud83d\udec0\ud83c\udffd \u2660\ufe0f (2024-02-06): Walking and talking\n- Mike Ackermann (2024-02-07): Don't most jobs that aren't office stuff involve not being stationary? Like construction workers, wood working, police, nurse ...\n- April (2024-02-07): i worked making sandwiches to order for a semester. i wasn't continuously walking or anything, but i was certainly walking several steps per sandwich\n- singer (2024-02-07): this market is about \"traditionally indoors\" jobs, which appears in the criteria of the parent market. I'll add it to this one as well since it's not easy to guess\n- \ud83d\udec0\ud83c\udffd \u2660\ufe0f (2024-02-08): lies lies all of it lies you have no proof (read this in all caps) another issue with submitting pictures of you doing anything at work, sitting standing or stationary\n- Savio Mak (2024-02-08): What is wrong with person above lol\n- Ian Philips (2024-02-11): I\u2019m curious if there\u2019re other engineers/executives who can do this besides wolfram \\nhttps://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2019/02/seeking-the-productive-life-some-details-of-my-personal-infrastructure/\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Some of Stephen Wolfram\u2019s \u201cproductivity hacks\u201d to make his days and projects more productive. ... I typically use a 5% incline and go at 2 mph\u2014and I\u2019m at least fit enough that I don\u2019t think anyone can tell I\u2019m walking while I\u2019m talking in a meeting. ... And in this folder are about 60 subfolders named for broad topics that I ... (Date published: Feb 21, 2019)\n- Steven Jonas May 1, 2019. We previously interviewed Stephen Wolfram of the eponymously named Wolfram Research in 2012 when he released a long piece about his extensive self-tracking. He recently posted a detailed description of what he describes as his \u201cpersonal productivity infrastructure\u201d. (Date published: May 1, 2019)\n- Very fixed. I like to do the first two hours of my day, which usually means my first two meetings, while walking. When it\u2019s nice weather, I walk outside, sometimes wearing a contraption so I can type on my computer when I\u2019m walking. Other times, I\u2019ll use a computer that I have set up on a treadmill. Read more\n- 2 recommenders | 2 mentions | 1 collection | Some of Stephen Wolfram\u2019s \u201cproductivity hacks\u201d to make his days and projects more productive. Daily life, desk environment, outside the office, presentation setup, filesystem organization, Wolfram Notebook systems, databases, personal analytics.\n- Rudy Rucker shared a link to this wonderful and idea-rich piece from Stephen Wolfram's blog. In the article, entitled \"Seeking the Productive Life: Some Details of My Personal Infrastructure ... (Date published: Mar 4, 2019)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill 5 users post credible evidence of not being stationary while working before 2025? [hard mode]\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Stephen Wolfram walking while working productivity\"", "search_results": "Some of Stephen Wolfram\u2019s \u201cproductivity hacks\u201d to make his days and projects more productive. ... I typically use a 5% incline and go at 2 mph\u2014and I\u2019m at least fit enough that I don\u2019t think anyone can tell I\u2019m walking while I\u2019m talking in a meeting. ... And in this folder are about 60 subfolders named for broad topics that I ... (Date published: Feb 21, 2019)\n\nSteven Jonas May 1, 2019. We previously interviewed Stephen Wolfram of the eponymously named Wolfram Research in 2012 when he released a long piece about his extensive self-tracking. He recently posted a detailed description of what he describes as his \u201cpersonal productivity infrastructure\u201d. (Date published: May 1, 2019)\n\nVery fixed. I like to do the first two hours of my day, which usually means my first two meetings, while walking. When it\u2019s nice weather, I walk outside, sometimes wearing a contraption so I can type on my computer when I\u2019m walking. Other times, I\u2019ll use a computer that I have set up on a treadmill. Read more\n\n2 recommenders | 2 mentions | 1 collection | Some of Stephen Wolfram\u2019s \u201cproductivity hacks\u201d to make his days and projects more productive. Daily life, desk environment, outside the office, presentation setup, filesystem organization, Wolfram Notebook systems, databases, personal analytics.\n\nRudy Rucker shared a link to this wonderful and idea-rich piece from Stephen Wolfram's blog. In the article, entitled \"Seeking the Productive Life: Some Details of My Personal Infrastructure ... (Date published: Mar 4, 2019)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Current date is Dec 1, 2024, with market closing Dec 31, 2024 (only 1 month remaining)\n2. S&P Global Ratings expects 2.7% US economic growth in 2024\n3. Various institutions have positive but modest growth forecasts:\n - Goldman Sachs projects S&P 500 at 4700 by end of 2024\n - UBS more bullish at 5600 target\n - Other analysts project ~3% growth from late 2023 levels\n4. GDP growth forecasts have been revised upward (1.6% to 2.4%)\n5. JPMorgan sees low near-term recession risk but potential end to expansion by mid-2025\n\n\n\n1. Only one month remains in the forecasting period, limiting time for major market moves (Strength: 9/10)\n2. Economic indicators are generally positive, with upward GDP revisions and strong growth forecasts (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Major investment banks are projecting continued market strength, with even conservative estimates well above 4000 (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Recession risks appear low for the immediate term (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Markets can be volatile and experience sharp short-term drops even in bullish periods (Strength: 4/10)\n2. Growing concerns about economic expansion ending by mid-2025 could trigger preventive selling (Strength: 3/10)\n3. Historical precedent shows December can have significant market movements due to tax-loss harvesting and portfolio rebalancing (Strength: 3/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is the extremely short time window remaining (just December 2024). This dramatically reduces the probability of the S&P 500 falling below 4000, as it would require a significant drop in a traditionally positive month for markets.\n\nThe economic fundamentals appear solid, with multiple reputable institutions projecting continued growth. While markets can certainly be volatile, the combination of positive economic indicators and the brief remaining timeframe makes a drop below 4000 unlikely.\n\nThe main risk factor would be a sudden shock event, but these are rare and the market has shown resilience to negative news in recent periods. The December timing actually provides some stability due to historical seasonal patterns.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing this forecast requires considering base rates of significant market drops within one-month periods. Historically, month-long drops of >15% (which would likely be needed to reach 4000) are quite rare, occurring in less than 5% of months.\n\nThe current economic environment appears more stable than average historical periods, with strong GDP growth and positive corporate earnings. This suggests we should adjust the base rate downward.\n\nThe very short time horizon is the dominant factor here - just as compound interest needs time to work, the probability of significant drawdowns increases with time. With only one month, the mechanics of market movements make a drop to 4000 quite unlikely barring a black swan event.\n\nMy initial forecast of 0.15 may still be too high given:\n1. The extremely short time window\n2. Generally positive economic indicators\n3. Historical rarity of such rapid drops\n4. December's typically positive seasonal effects\n\n\n*0.08*", "probability": 0.08, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/JustinHalford/will-the-sp-500-fall-below-4000-poi", "market_probability": 0.021643160444428582, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill the S&P 500 fall below 4000 points at any time before the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- S&P Global Ratings expects the U.S. economy to expand 2.7% in 2024 and 1.8% in 2025 (on an annual average basis). The growth forecasts are 0.2 and 0.1 percentage point higher, respectively, compared with our June forecasts, partly reflecting the impulse from financial conditions that turned more positive and partly on stronger core goods consumption than previously expected. On a year-end ... (Date published: Sep 24, 2024)\n- Continued economic and EPS growth will lift the S&P 500 index to 4700 (+5%) at the end of next year. However, the benchmark will still remain slightly below its January 2022 all-time high of 4797. Our interim 3-month (4500) and 6-month (4500) S&P 500 index targets re\ufb02ect a \ufb02at market during 1H 2024 (Exhibit 1). We believe the\n- UBS upgraded its S&P 500 target to 5,600, noting stronger-than-expected earnings growth and reduced risk of an economic downturn. ... consensus 2024 GDP forecasts have increased from 1.6% to 2.4% ...\n- J.P. Morgan Research sees only a modest risk the global economy slides into recession in the near term but is forecasting an end to the global expansion by mid-2025. ... Equity market outlook In 2022, the S&P 500 slid close to 20% in the wake of the Fed\u2019s decision to rapidly hike interest rates. However, equity markets advanced in 2023 ... (Date published: Dec 13, 2023)\n- The S&P 500 will end next year only about 3% higher than its current level, with a possible U.S. economic slowdown or recession among the biggest risks for the market in 2024, according to ... (Date published: Nov 21, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill the S&P 500 fall below 4000 points at any time before the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "S&P 500 economic forecast 2024 recession risk", "search_results": "S&P Global Ratings expects the U.S. economy to expand 2.7% in 2024 and 1.8% in 2025 (on an annual average basis). The growth forecasts are 0.2 and 0.1 percentage point higher, respectively, compared with our June forecasts, partly reflecting the impulse from financial conditions that turned more positive and partly on stronger core goods consumption than previously expected. On a year-end ... (Date published: Sep 24, 2024)\n\nContinued economic and EPS growth will lift the S&P 500 index to 4700 (+5%) at the end of next year. However, the benchmark will still remain slightly below its January 2022 all-time high of 4797. Our interim 3-month (4500) and 6-month (4500) S&P 500 index targets re\ufb02ect a \ufb02at market during 1H 2024 (Exhibit 1). We believe the\n\nUBS upgraded its S&P 500 target to 5,600, noting stronger-than-expected earnings growth and reduced risk of an economic downturn. ... consensus 2024 GDP forecasts have increased from 1.6% to 2.4% ...\n\nJ.P. Morgan Research sees only a modest risk the global economy slides into recession in the near term but is forecasting an end to the global expansion by mid-2025. ... Equity market outlook In 2022, the S&P 500 slid close to 20% in the wake of the Fed\u2019s decision to rapidly hike interest rates. However, equity markets advanced in 2023 ... (Date published: Dec 13, 2023)\n\nThe S&P 500 will end next year only about 3% higher than its current level, with a possible U.S. economic slowdown or recession among the biggest risks for the market in 2024, according to ... (Date published: Nov 21, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "Let me analyze this step by step.\n\n\n1. Book 5 of Stormlight Archive has not been released yet\n2. Brandon Sanderson has confirmed a 10-year time skip between books 5 and 6\n3. Back 5 books (6-10) will feature different flashback characters (Lift, Renarin, Ash, Taln, Jasnah)\n4. Sanderson has stated flashback characters aren't guaranteed to be alive\n5. Kaladin's character arc has heavily focused on battling suicidal tendencies and choosing life\n6. There are indications Kaladin may transition toward being a therapist\n7. The story involves conflict with godlike entities\n8. Cognitive shadows exist in this universe as a form of post-death existence\n9. Story is currently at a crucial turning point in the series (end of first arc)\n10. Kaladin has been receiving therapy/guidance from Wit throughout series\n\n\n\n1. Major conflict with godlike entities increases death risk (7/10)\n2. End of first story arc could merit dramatic character death (6/10)\n3. Character's completion of personal growth arc could make death narratively acceptable (5/10)\n4. Cognitive shadow option provides \"soft landing\" for potential death (4/10)\n\n\n\n1. Killing a character who overcame suicidal tendencies would undermine core themes (9/10)\n2. Future therapist role suggests long-term character development plans (8/10)\n3. 10-year time skip implies need for established characters to bridge gap (7/10)\n4. Character's popularity makes death commercially risky (6/10)\n5. Author tends to preserve main viewpoint characters (7/10)\n\n\n\nThe strongest factor here is the thematic resonance - killing a character whose entire arc revolves around choosing life would be problematic from a narrative perspective. The existence of future plot elements (therapist role, time skip) also suggests continued survival.\n\nWhile the high-stakes conflict presents genuine danger, Sanderson has historically been conservative with permanent deaths of major viewpoint characters. The cognitive shadow \"escape clause\" in the market rules is telling - it suggests even death might not be truly final.\n\nThe market structure, allowing for a 50% PROB resolution with cognitive shadow, complicates the forecast. We need to consider three scenarios:\n1. Clear survival\n2. Death with cognitive shadow\n3. Complete death\n\nThis requires careful probability allocation across these outcomes.\n\n\n0.82\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n\n1. Base rates: Sanderson's track record shows very high survival rates for primary viewpoint characters across his works.\n\n2. Genre conventions: While fantasy permits major character deaths, series tent-poles typically survive main arcs.\n\n3. The \"cognitive shadow\" clause actually strengthens the case for survival - it suggests even if dramatic tension requires a \"death\" moment, complete removal of the character is unlikely.\n\n4. Commercial considerations: As a flagship character, completely removing Kaladin would be a significant business risk.\n\n5. Timing: The existence of long-term character development threads (therapy role) would be unusual to introduce near a planned death.\n\nLooking at comparative character arcs in Sanderson's other works, and considering the structural role Kaladin plays in the series, the initial estimate may even be slightly low.\n\nThe existence of three possible outcomes (survival/cognitive shadow/death) might suggest defaulting closer to 33% for each, but the evidence strongly weights toward survival, with cognitive shadow as a backup option, and complete death as the least likely outcome.\n\n\n*0.85*", "probability": 0.85, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/LivInTheLookingGlass/rot13-will-xnynqva-survive-book-5-o", "market_probability": 0.8355853874257357, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \n[ROT13] Will [Xnynqva] survive Book 5 of Stormlight Archive?\n \n**Description:**\nResolves YES if Kaladin survives book 5. Resolves NO if Kaladin dies, excluding cases of resurrection. Resolves PROB 50% if he dies but leaves behind a cognitive shadow\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Luke Hanks (HankyUSA) (2023-03-20): I want to bet NO for some emotional hedging, but no amount of mana can make up for that pain.\n- Jacob (2023-06-07): The time to kill him off was when he couldn't handle the Fourth Ideal and Teft could surpass him. Probably \\nafter\\n Teft had surpassed him, allowing the Windrunners to grow beyond him.\\nSince that didn't happen, I think it would be very narratively unsatisfying.\n- Distinctly Skeptical (2024-01-07): @LivInTheLookingGlass\\n Can you please resolve?\n- Forrest (2024-01-07): Book isn't out yet; close date was presumably set when we thought it'd be sooner.\n- Distinctly Skeptical (2024-01-14): Ok, ill extend the close time since the creator is AFK\n- Idk Idc (2024-02-06): Bought the ''no'' erroneously, it would make no sense if he died given his character arc of choosing life over death.\n- Jacob (2024-07-29): How does that follow? You don't have to choose death to die. They're fighting a god!\n- Idk Idc (2024-07-30): Stories follow not only the in-universe logic (i.e: what makes most sense to happen from a perspective of someone living in that world), but also our-universe logic (i.e: what makes a good story). While it makes sense from in-universe perspective if Kaladin dies, it would be poor storytelling if the character whose whole arc was about fighting his suicidal tendencies just died.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- At the end of book 5, Kaladin will start living more for himself while still doing his best to help other people. He wants to be a therapist. Who has been giving Kaladin free therapy since book one? Wit. The worldsinger who shares stories. Also after a calamity, knowledge will prolly be hard to pass around, humans will be fragmented. (Date published: Oct 18, 2021)\n- We will allow people to make their own posts again in the near future... But on account of an incredibly high post volume, please direct all Stormlight 5 discussion to this thread for the time being. (Please don't report posts created prior to this one guys--though we would recommend that people focus their comments here for the time being.). We apologize that things were a bit crazy yesterday ...\n- So let's start here: Brandon's confirmed that the time skip between book 5 and 6 is about 10 years. The back 5 books will have Lift, Renarin, Ash, Taln, and Jasnah as the flashback characters, but Brandon has said that doesn't guarantee they'll be alive, he's willing to have a dead character be the flashback POV.\n- A community for the Stormlight Archive series by Brandon Sanderson. ... It's a plot lever for Sanderson that he turns to whenever he has to push the story in a particular direction without the hero saving the day before things get interesting. ... Personally I think the time skip from book 5 to 6 will give Kaladin time to become powerful and ...\n- I thought that Kaladin is a character bound to Stormlight Archive whose story wouldn't go past it but now I'm convinced that Cosmere needs more people like Kaladin and worldhopping Kal would be a good idea. Now that I think of it many of the Cosmere-aware folks traveling around don't seem all that good. (Date published: Feb 15, 2021)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \n[ROT13] Will [Xnynqva] survive Book 5 of Stormlight Archive?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Brandon Sanderson Stormlight Archive Book 5 Kaladin plot rumors", "search_results": "At the end of book 5, Kaladin will start living more for himself while still doing his best to help other people. He wants to be a therapist. Who has been giving Kaladin free therapy since book one? Wit. The worldsinger who shares stories. Also after a calamity, knowledge will prolly be hard to pass around, humans will be fragmented. (Date published: Oct 18, 2021)\n\nWe will allow people to make their own posts again in the near future... But on account of an incredibly high post volume, please direct all Stormlight 5 discussion to this thread for the time being. (Please don't report posts created prior to this one guys--though we would recommend that people focus their comments here for the time being.). We apologize that things were a bit crazy yesterday ...\n\nSo let's start here: Brandon's confirmed that the time skip between book 5 and 6 is about 10 years. The back 5 books will have Lift, Renarin, Ash, Taln, and Jasnah as the flashback characters, but Brandon has said that doesn't guarantee they'll be alive, he's willing to have a dead character be the flashback POV.\n\nA community for the Stormlight Archive series by Brandon Sanderson. ... It's a plot lever for Sanderson that he turns to whenever he has to push the story in a particular direction without the hero saving the day before things get interesting. ... Personally I think the time skip from book 5 to 6 will give Kaladin time to become powerful and ...\n\nI thought that Kaladin is a character bound to Stormlight Archive whose story wouldn't go past it but now I'm convinced that Cosmere needs more people like Kaladin and worldhopping Kal would be a good idea. Now that I think of it many of the Cosmere-aware folks traveling around don't seem all that good. (Date published: Feb 15, 2021)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me forecast this step by step.\n\n\n1. As of June 2024, Musk filed to dismiss his lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman\n2. In late 2024, there are still ongoing legal disputes around OpenAI and Microsoft's practices\n3. Musk has historically been involved with OpenAI as a co-founder but left in 2018\n4. OpenAI has undergone significant organizational changes, including a brief leadership crisis in late 2023\n5. OpenAI has major existing partnerships, particularly with Microsoft which has invested billions\n6. There is only one month remaining in 2024 for such a purchase to occur\n7. OpenAI's valuation was estimated at over $80 billion in recent discussions\n\n\n\n1. Time constraint - Only one month remains to complete such a major acquisition (Strength: 9/10)\n2. Microsoft's deep integration and investment in OpenAI makes acquisition by others extremely complex (Strength: 8/10)\n3. Musk recently dropped his lawsuit, suggesting reduced antagonism rather than acquisition plans (Strength: 7/10)\n4. Musk is heavily invested in his own AI ventures, particularly xAI (Strength: 7/10)\n5. OpenAI's high valuation would require significant capital commitment even for Musk (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Musk has historical connection to OpenAI and understanding of its value (Strength: 4/10)\n2. Musk has shown willingness to make surprise major acquisitions (e.g., Twitter) (Strength: 3/10)\n3. OpenAI's recent organizational turbulence might create acquisition opportunities (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe time constraint is particularly severe - major tech acquisitions typically take months of negotiation, due diligence, and regulatory review. The Microsoft relationship adds another layer of complexity that would be difficult to unwind in such a short timeframe.\n\nThe recent dismissal of Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI actually suggests movement away from, rather than toward, acquisition. If acquisition were being contemplated, maintaining legal pressure might have been strategically valuable.\n\nThe organizational structure of OpenAI (as a hybrid profit/nonprofit) also makes straightforward acquisition challenging. Any purchase would likely require complex restructuring.\n\nLooking at base rates, surprise tech acquisitions of this scale are extremely rare, especially in such compressed timeframes. While Musk has made surprising moves before (Twitter/X), those typically had longer lead times and clear preceding signals.\n\n\n0.01\n\n\nReviewing this estimate:\n\n1. The prior probability for any specific major tech acquisition in a given month is extremely low, likely well below 1%\n\n2. Case-specific factors mostly reduce rather than increase this probability:\n- The extremely short timeframe\n- Complex existing corporate relationships\n- Recent resolution of legal conflict suggesting different direction\n- No public signals of preparation or interest\n\n3. While Musk has resources and can act unpredictably, the concrete obstacles (especially time) create hard constraints that even his unconventional approach couldn't easily overcome\n\n4. The only significant factor potentially increasing probability above baseline is Musk's historical connection to OpenAI, but this is outweighed by recent developments\n\nThe tentative estimate of 1% may actually be somewhat high given these considerations, but it appropriately reflects the small but non-zero possibility of a shocking development.\n\n\n*0.01*", "probability": 0.01, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/BabyCoder/will-elon-musk-purchase-openai-befo", "market_probability": 0.02795408608195975, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Elon Musk Purchase OpenAI before the end of 2024\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Musk\u2019s attorneys say if OpenAI goes for-profit, it could \u2018lack sufficient funds\u2019 for damages if Musk wins his lawsuit. By Wes Davis , a weekend editor who covers the latest in tech and ...\n- Counsel for Musk wrote that if an injunction isn\u2019t granted, OpenAI might \u201clack sufficient funds\u201d to pay damages were the court to eventually rule in Musk\u2019s favor. (OpenAI is reportedly ...\n- Elon Musk is trying to get the court to stop OpenAI's transition to a for-profit entity, a new filing shows. In a motion filed Friday, Musk's lawyers asked Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the US ...\n- Lawyers for Elon Musk on Tuesday filed a motion to dismiss the billionaire\u2019s lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman, ending a months-long battle between co-founders of the artificial intelligence (Date published: Jun 11, 2024)\n- Still, a lawsuit that accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of anticompetitive practices could garner sympathy while Musk has the ear of US president-elect Donald Trump. Related Inside Elon Musk\u2019s AI ... (Date published: Nov 18, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Elon Musk Purchase OpenAI before the end of 2024\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Elon Musk OpenAI acquisition lawsuit and relationship 2024\"", "search_results": "Musk\u2019s attorneys say if OpenAI goes for-profit, it could \u2018lack sufficient funds\u2019 for damages if Musk wins his lawsuit. By Wes Davis , a weekend editor who covers the latest in tech and ...\n\nCounsel for Musk wrote that if an injunction isn\u2019t granted, OpenAI might \u201clack sufficient funds\u201d to pay damages were the court to eventually rule in Musk\u2019s favor. (OpenAI is reportedly ...\n\nElon Musk is trying to get the court to stop OpenAI's transition to a for-profit entity, a new filing shows. In a motion filed Friday, Musk's lawyers asked Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the US ...\n\nLawyers for Elon Musk on Tuesday filed a motion to dismiss the billionaire\u2019s lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman, ending a months-long battle between co-founders of the artificial intelligence (Date published: Jun 11, 2024)\n\nStill, a lawsuit that accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of anticompetitive practices could garner sympathy while Musk has the ear of US president-elect Donald Trump. Related Inside Elon Musk\u2019s AI ... (Date published: Nov 18, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. SBF was sentenced to 25 years in prison in March 2024\n2. He is currently 32 years old\n3. He was found guilty of multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy\n4. He is under supervised release for 3 years after prison\n5. He was ordered to pay $11 billion in forfeiture\n6. Some users have previously impersonated SBF on Manifold Markets\n7. The question requires unambiguous verification that it's really him\n8. The market closes December 31, 2024\n\n\n\n1. SBF is literally in prison and will be there until ~2049 (Strength: 10/10)\n2. Prison inmates typically have very limited internet access, especially those convicted of cyber-related crimes (Strength: 9/10)\n3. Given his conviction for fraud, any financial/betting platform would likely ban him anyway (Strength: 8/10)\n4. He has massive financial penalties and likely no access to funds to place bets (Strength: 7/10)\n5. Authentication would be extremely difficult from prison (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. He might have some interest in prediction markets intellectually (Strength: 3/10)\n2. There's a slim chance he could get limited supervised internet access (Strength: 1/10)\n3. He did previously indicate prediction markets \"make sense\" (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe core mechanism here is simple: SBF is physically unable to join Manifold Markets because he's incarcerated. Even if he wanted to, the barriers are nearly insurmountable:\n- Prison restrictions on internet access\n- Platform would likely ban him\n- Authentication requirements\n- Financial restrictions\n- Legal complications\n\nThis is essentially a conjunction of multiple extremely unlikely events that would ALL need to occur for this to happen. The multiplication principle applies here, making the overall probability vanishingly small.\n\n\n0.0001\n\n\nReflecting on this forecast:\n\n1. Base rate considerations: What proportion of federal inmates join prediction markets while incarcerated? Effectively zero.\n\n2. Specific circumstances make this even less likely than the base rate:\n- High-profile financial criminal\n- Cyber-related conviction\n- Massive financial penalties\n- Need for unambiguous verification\n\n3. Time constraint: This needs to happen by December 31, 2024, when he will definitely still be in prison.\n\n4. My tentative probability of 0.0001 (1 in 10,000) might actually be too high. Given the conjunction of necessary events and the extremely short timeframe, an even lower probability could be justified.\n\nHowever, maintaining some epistemic humility and accounting for unknown unknowns (perhaps some legal technicality or special circumstance I'm unaware of), I'll keep the probability at this level rather than going even lower.\n\n\n*0.0001*", "probability": 0.0001, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-sbf-join-manifold-by-the-end-o", "market_probability": 0.02515867536353373, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill SBF join Manifold by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nHe does think it \"makes sense\"!\n\nMust be unambiguously him. A suspiciously detail-free account named \"SBF\" is not good enough.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Isaac King (2022-11-15): Imposter!\\nhttps://manifold.markets/SBF\n- Wendel (2022-11-15): \ud83e\udd23 \n- Isaac King (2022-11-15): You own markets betray you! Sam-Bankman Fried has no mustache. \\nhttps://manifold.markets/SBF/will-i-keep-a-mustache-through-the\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- A federal judge on Thursday ordered Sam Bankman-Fried to pay more than $11 billion as part of his sentence for defrauding customers and investors in his failed crypto exchange FTX. (Date published: Mar 29, 2024)\n- NEW YORK (AP) \u2014 Sam Bankman-Fried co-founded the FTX crypto exchange in 2019 and quickly built it into the world\u2019s second most popular place to trade digital currency. It collapsed almost as quickly. By the fall of 2022, it was bankrupt. Prosecutors soon charged Bankman-Fried with misappropriating billions of dollars in FTX customer deposits. They said he used the money to prop up his ... (Date published: Mar 28, 2024)\n- Samuel Bankman-Fried, also known as SBF, 32, of Stanford, California, was sentenced today to 25 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $11 billion in forfeiture for his orchestration of multiple fraudulent schemes. Bankman-Fried, who was the founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX and the cryptocurrency trading firm Alameda Research, (Date published: Mar 28, 2024)\n- Sam Bankman-Fried outside a Manhattan court in New York last year. The 32-year-old former CEO of the now-bankrupt crypto exchange FTX was found guilty in November for what prosecutors say is ... (Date published: Mar 28, 2024)\n- FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced to a total of 300 months, or 25 years, in prison for seven counts of conspiracy and fraud charges stemming from the collapse of the crypto exchange ... (Date published: Nov 12, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill SBF join Manifold by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Sam Bankman-Fried Manifold Markets account verification 2024\"", "search_results": "A federal judge on Thursday ordered Sam Bankman-Fried to pay more than $11 billion as part of his sentence for defrauding customers and investors in his failed crypto exchange FTX. (Date published: Mar 29, 2024)\n\nNEW YORK (AP) \u2014 Sam Bankman-Fried co-founded the FTX crypto exchange in 2019 and quickly built it into the world\u2019s second most popular place to trade digital currency. It collapsed almost as quickly. By the fall of 2022, it was bankrupt. Prosecutors soon charged Bankman-Fried with misappropriating billions of dollars in FTX customer deposits. They said he used the money to prop up his ... (Date published: Mar 28, 2024)\n\nSamuel Bankman-Fried, also known as SBF, 32, of Stanford, California, was sentenced today to 25 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $11 billion in forfeiture for his orchestration of multiple fraudulent schemes. Bankman-Fried, who was the founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX and the cryptocurrency trading firm Alameda Research, (Date published: Mar 28, 2024)\n\nSam Bankman-Fried outside a Manhattan court in New York last year. The 32-year-old former CEO of the now-bankrupt crypto exchange FTX was found guilty in November for what prosecutors say is ... (Date published: Mar 28, 2024)\n\nFTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced to a total of 300 months, or 25 years, in prison for seven counts of conspiracy and fraud charges stemming from the collapse of the crypto exchange ... (Date published: Nov 12, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. According to search results from Nov 2024, Trump received 42% of nonwhite votes\n2. Trump's support among Latino voters significantly increased, with Harris leading by only 8 points (53-45%) compared to Biden's 33-point lead in 2020\n3. Trump received 24% support from Black men vs 9% from Black women in 2024\n4. In 2020, Trump received 35% of Latino votes\n5. Trump's voter base remained predominantly white (80%+) in 2024, similar to 2020\n6. Historical context: Republican presidential candidates typically receive 20-40% of the nonwhite vote\n7. Exit polls can have significant margins of error and may not be as reliable as post-election analysis by organizations like Catalist\n\n\n\n1. The search results indicate Trump received 42% of nonwhite votes, which falls short of the 45% threshold (Strength: 9/10)\n2. Multiple independent sources confirm these numbers, suggesting the data is relatively reliable (Strength: 7/10)\n3. The majority of Trump's voter base remains overwhelmingly white, indicating limited success in expanding nonwhite support (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\n1. The reported numbers come from exit polls, which have high margins of error and tend to underestimate Republican support (Strength: 6/10)\n2. The trend shows significant improvement in Trump's nonwhite support from 2020 to 2024 (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Latino support for Trump increased dramatically, approaching parity with Harris (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is that we already have post-election data showing Trump received 42% of the nonwhite vote. While exit polls can be unreliable, multiple sources confirm similar numbers, and the trend lines make sense given historical context. The dramatic improvement among Latino voters is notable but not enough to push the overall nonwhite number above 45%.\n\nThe question essentially becomes whether the actual number, after final tabulation and analysis by Catalist, will differ from the exit poll number by 3+ percentage points in Trump's favor. While possible, this would be a significant deviation.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nLet's examine this probability through different lenses:\n\n1. Base rate: Looking at historical discrepancies between exit polls and final numbers, differences of 3+ points occur but are uncommon, perhaps 15-20% of the time.\n\n2. Specific context: The 42% figure appears in multiple sources and aligns with other demographic breakdowns (Latino vote, Black vote, etc.). The internal consistency strengthens confidence in the number.\n\n3. The magnitude of required error (3+ points) is substantial, especially given this is a nationwide sample with large n-size.\n\nMy initial probability of 0.15 seems well-calibrated. It acknowledges the possibility of measurement error while respecting the weight of evidence suggesting Trump fell short of 45%. A higher probability would underweight the multiple independent sources confirming the 42% figure, while a lower probability would be overconfident given known uncertainties in exit polling.\n\n\n*0.15*", "probability": 0.15, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/WilliamDewey/will-trump-receive-at-least-45-of-t", "market_probability": 0.09999999999999987, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Trump receive at least 45% of the nonwhite vote in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nBased on the infographic in this post: https://www.natesilver.net/p/democrats-are-hemorrhaging-support\n\nConsidering only the two-party vote. I think Catalist is the best source for demographic breakdowns after the election, as exit polls have high margins of error.\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Robin (2024-10-21): interesting market with a lot of liquidity\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Trump\u2019s support grew from 35 percent in 2020 to 42 percent in 2024. There was a gender gap in 2024\u2019s voting preferences: Trump won support from 24 percent of Black men versus 9 percent of ... (Date published: Nov 7, 2024)\n- The 2024 exit poll reveals that Harris holds an 8-point lead among Latino voters, 53 percent to 45 percent. In 2020, Biden's lead over Trump among Latinos was 33 points. (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n- Most Trump voters were white, a trend that continued from 2020. Slightly more than 8 in 10 Trump voters in this election were white, roughly in line with 2020. About two-thirds of Harris\u2019 voters were white, and that largely matched President Joe Biden \u2019s coalition in the last election. White voters make up a bulk of the voting electorate in ... (Date published: Nov 7, 2024)\n- Here is how five key groups voted in the 2024 election, based on polls. ... While Harris beat Trump by more than 10-percentage ... when Biden received 63% of the Latino vote versus 35% for Trump. (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n- Exit polls from the 2024 U.S. presidential election suggest a 10 percentage point gender gap in votes for Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump. While a majority of female U.S. voters ... (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Trump receive at least 45% of the nonwhite vote in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Trump nonwhite vote percentage Catalist 2024 poll\"", "search_results": "Trump\u2019s support grew from 35 percent in 2020 to 42 percent in 2024. There was a gender gap in 2024\u2019s voting preferences: Trump won support from 24 percent of Black men versus 9 percent of ... (Date published: Nov 7, 2024)\n\nThe 2024 exit poll reveals that Harris holds an 8-point lead among Latino voters, 53 percent to 45 percent. In 2020, Biden's lead over Trump among Latinos was 33 points. (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n\nMost Trump voters were white, a trend that continued from 2020. Slightly more than 8 in 10 Trump voters in this election were white, roughly in line with 2020. About two-thirds of Harris\u2019 voters were white, and that largely matched President Joe Biden \u2019s coalition in the last election. White voters make up a bulk of the voting electorate in ... (Date published: Nov 7, 2024)\n\nHere is how five key groups voted in the 2024 election, based on polls. ... While Harris beat Trump by more than 10-percentage ... when Biden received 63% of the Latino vote versus 35% for Trump. (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)\n\nExit polls from the 2024 U.S. presidential election suggest a 10 percentage point gender gap in votes for Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump. While a majority of female U.S. voters ... (Date published: Nov 6, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Microsoft owns both Java and Bedrock editions of Minecraft\n2. Bedrock evolved from Pocket Edition, reaching full release in 2016\n3. Both versions currently have large, active player bases\n4. Microsoft bundles Java & Bedrock Edition together for Windows 10/11 PCs\n5. As of late 2024, Mojang is actively developing both versions\n6. Recent updates aim to achieve version parity between editions\n7. Mojang is working on expanding platform availability (PS5) and multiplayer features\n8. Java Edition historically led in new content, but update timing has equalized\n9. Java Edition remains crucial for modding community\n10. Microsoft's strategy appears focused on parallel development rather than replacement\n\n\n\n1. Java Edition has a massive, dedicated modding community that would face severe disruption (Strength: 9/10)\n2. Microsoft continues investing in both versions with parallel development (Strength: 8/10)\n3. Recent bundling of Java+Bedrock suggests commitment to maintaining both (Strength: 7/10)\n4. The technical architecture differences mean Bedrock can't fully replace Java functionality (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Microsoft may want to consolidate development resources on one version (Strength: 6/10)\n2. Bedrock offers better cross-platform compatibility (Strength: 5/10)\n3. Microsoft might prefer their own technology stack over Java (Strength: 4/10)\n4. Maintenance costs for two parallel versions could be seen as inefficient (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here is between Microsoft's business interests and the technical/community realities of Minecraft. Several factors make dropping Java Edition highly unlikely in this timeframe:\n\n1. Time horizon is very short (barely one year)\n2. No signals of preparation for such a major change\n3. Strong technical dependencies on Java Edition for modding\n4. Recent investments in Java Edition suggest opposite direction\n5. Risk/reward ratio for Microsoft would be extremely poor\n\nThe business case for maintaining both versions remains strong, as they serve different use cases and user bases. The cost of maintaining both is likely minimal compared to potential community backlash and technical complications from dropping Java.\n\n\n0.08\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n\n1. Historical precedent: Microsoft has maintained other acquired products' original architectures (GitHub, LinkedIn) rather than forcing migration to their stack\n2. Base rate: Major gaming platforms rarely abandon large established user bases without clear migration paths and long transition periods\n3. Time constraint: The question specifies by 2025, which is an extremely aggressive timeline for such a significant change\n4. Market dynamics: Competition in the gaming space makes maintaining goodwill crucial\n\nI considered whether my initial estimate might be too low, but the extremely short timeframe combined with recent investments in Java Edition actually suggests it might be slightly high. The conjunction of needed conditions (decision to drop, implementation, communication) within one year makes this highly unlikely.\n\n\n*0.05*", "probability": 0.05, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/kenakofer/will-minecraft-java-be-dropped-from", "market_probability": 0.05868021837069776, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Minecraft Java be dropped from the launcher by 2025?\n \n**Description:**\nMicrosoft has been pushing Bedrock edition toward superceding Minecraft Java edition slowly over the last few years. This trend is troubling for modders and people running servers at home.\n\nThis resolves positively when the standard Minecraft launcher on PC stops offering new Java edition updates, while continuing to release updates to other versions.\n\nThis resolves no in 2025 otherwise.\n\nThis could resolve N.A. if minecraft is no longer being developed at all.\n\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- If you own a Windows 10 or 11 PC, you can also get the Java & Bedrock Edition, which (as its name very subtly suggests) contains both for the price of one! Plus, owning one edition entitles you to get the other one for free. For more info, check out our Java and Bedrock Edition FAQ. UPDATES AND EARLY ACCESS ON JAVA AND BEDROCK (Date published: Oct 25, 2021)\n- The original version of the title, now known as Java Edition, was made by Notch. Bedrock, on the other hand, is a more modern version, created using Pocket Edition as a base after Microsoft ... (Date published: Aug 3, 2024)\n- Right now, we\u2019re also working on bringing a native version of Minecraft to the PlayStation\u00ae5 \u2013 because Minecraft is better when friends can play together on whichever device they want. Over the coming year, we\u2019ll also be exploring ways to improve Minecraft\u2019s multiplayer experience and make it easier to find and connect with friends. (Date published: Sep 8, 2024)\n- Winner: Bedrock Edition. Updates . The Java Edition of Minecraft used to be the go-to version when it comes to flashy new content, but that\u2019s since changed as Mojang aims to release updates ... (Date published: Feb 26, 2024)\n- Minecraft: Bedrock Edition began its life in 2011 as 'Minecraft: Pocket Edition,' and was in an Alpha state until its full release in 2016. Currently, both versions are active and have broad, passionate audiences. For the purposes of clarity, we will be referring to the versions as 'Java' and 'Bedrock' respectively for the remainder of the article. (Date published: Jan 31, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Minecraft Java be dropped from the launcher by 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Minecraft Java vs Bedrock Microsoft plans 2025\"", "search_results": "If you own a Windows 10 or 11 PC, you can also get the Java & Bedrock Edition, which (as its name very subtly suggests) contains both for the price of one! Plus, owning one edition entitles you to get the other one for free. For more info, check out our Java and Bedrock Edition FAQ. UPDATES AND EARLY ACCESS ON JAVA AND BEDROCK (Date published: Oct 25, 2021)\n\nThe original version of the title, now known as Java Edition, was made by Notch. Bedrock, on the other hand, is a more modern version, created using Pocket Edition as a base after Microsoft ... (Date published: Aug 3, 2024)\n\nRight now, we\u2019re also working on bringing a native version of Minecraft to the PlayStation\u00ae5 \u2013 because Minecraft is better when friends can play together on whichever device they want. Over the coming year, we\u2019ll also be exploring ways to improve Minecraft\u2019s multiplayer experience and make it easier to find and connect with friends. (Date published: Sep 8, 2024)\n\nWinner: Bedrock Edition. Updates . The Java Edition of Minecraft used to be the go-to version when it comes to flashy new content, but that\u2019s since changed as Mojang aims to release updates ... (Date published: Feb 26, 2024)\n\nMinecraft: Bedrock Edition began its life in 2011 as 'Minecraft: Pocket Edition,' and was in an Alpha state until its full release in 2016. Currently, both versions are active and have broad, passionate audiences. For the purposes of clarity, we will be referring to the versions as 'Java' and 'Bedrock' respectively for the remainder of the article. (Date published: Jan 31, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. William MacAskill is a prominent philosopher and key figure in the effective altruism movement\n2. He wrote an article in 2015 promoting killing predators (including lions) for animal welfare reasons\n3. The market closes December 31, 2024, and today is December 1, 2024\n4. MacAskill is primarily an academic and author, not known for hands-on wildlife management\n5. There's ambiguity in what constitutes \"going lion hunting\" based on the comments\n6. The article supporting predator killing is from 2015, with no recent public statements found on this topic\n7. Lion hunting is legal in several African countries but requires permits and significant planning\n\n\n\n1. Only 30 days remain in 2024, making logistics very difficult (Strength: 9/10)\n2. No evidence MacAskill has ever participated in hunting or shown interest in direct involvement (Strength: 8/10)\n3. Academic philosophers typically engage through writing/debate rather than direct action (Strength: 7/10)\n4. Potential reputation risk within EA community for controversial direct action (Strength: 6/10)\n5. Lion hunting requires significant preparation, permits, and expense (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. MacAskill has previously written supporting predator killing philosophically (Strength: 4/10)\n2. Comment from \"Billy McRascal\" claims to have found evidence and increased bet size (Strength: 2/10)\n3. The definition appears to be relatively loose based on comments (Strength: 3/10)\n\n\n\nThe time constraint is the most immediate and powerful factor - with only 30 days remaining, the logistics of arranging a lion hunt would be extremely challenging. Even if MacAskill wanted to do this, getting permits and arrangements in place would be very difficult in this timeframe.\n\nThe claimed \"evidence\" in the comments is too vague to significantly move the probability, especially given the seemingly joking tone of the commenter (referring to \"sheep in lion's clothing\").\n\nWhile MacAskill has written philosophically supporting predator killing, there's a vast gap between writing about an idea and personally participating in hunting. His background suggests he's much more likely to engage with ideas through academic channels rather than direct action.\n\n\n0.01\n\n\nLet's examine this probability through different lenses:\n\nBase rate: The percentage of academic philosophers who go lion hunting is likely extremely low, probably less than 0.1%. Even among those who theoretically support predator control, direct participation would be rare.\n\nTime factor: With only 30 days left in 2024, even if MacAskill wanted to do this, the practical constraints are severe. Lion hunting typically requires advance planning, permits, and specific seasonal windows.\n\nEvidence quality: The only positive signal is a 9-year-old article about the theoretical benefits of predator control, and a vague comment about \"evidence\" that appears to be part of a joke thread.\n\nThe tentative probability of 1% actually seems slightly high given these considerations. While MacAskill has written about predator control, the combination of practical constraints, extremely short remaining timeframe, and his typical mode of engagement suggest an even lower probability might be warranted.\n\n\n*0.005*", "probability": 0.005, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Teddy/will-william-macaskill-go-lion-hunt", "market_probability": 0.05101747471905667, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill William MacAskill go lion hunting by the end of 2024\n \n**Description:**\nWilliam MacAskill wrote this piece promoting killing predators, especially lions, in the name of animal welfare (prey). As we prepare for the local lion hunting season, we ask if MacAskill will join us. Resolves yes if MacAskill goes on a lion hunt anywhere before the end of 2024.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Billy McRascal (2024-01-05): What counts as \"going\" on a lion hunt? Like, how hard do I - I mean does he - have to try to actually get the lion? What if it's in a zoo? What if it's not a lion but just a really fearsome sheep?\n- Billy McRascal (2024-01-05): I've found some evidence; increasing my bet size.\n- Teddy (2024-11-21): If it is a sheep in lion's clothing, it counts.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- In this event, William MacAskill will discuss his recent book W... Does what we do today determine the happiness or misery of trillions of people in the future?\n- By killing predators, we can save the lives of the many prey animals like wildebeests, zebras, and buffalos in the local area that would otherwise be killed in order to keep the animals at the top ... (Date published: Sep 9, 2015)\n- William MacAskill\u2019s movement set out to help the global poor. Now his followers fret about runaway A.I. Gideon Lewis-Kraus writes about whether they have seen the threats clearly, or lost their way. (Date published: Aug 8, 2022)\n- William David MacAskill (n\u00e9 Crouch; born 24 March 1987) [2] is a Scottish philosopher and author, as well as one of the originators of the effective altruism movement. [3] [4] [5] He was a Research Fellow at the Global Priorities Institute at the University of Oxford, co-founded Giving What We Can, the Centre for Effective Altruism and 80,000 Hours, [6] and is the author of Doing Good Better ...\n- William MacAskill\u2019s new book What We Owe the Future is an expedition into the distant future of humanity. To get on board, one is to imagine oneself having lived through every human life that has been and is likely to come as segments of one\u2019s own life. One would then have been a hunter-gatherer, a coloniser, a small-pox survivor, and so on ... (Date published: Jun 15, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill William MacAskill go lion hunting by the end of 2024\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"William MacAskill lion hunting 2024\"", "search_results": "In this event, William MacAskill will discuss his recent book W... Does what we do today determine the happiness or misery of trillions of people in the future?\n\nBy killing predators, we can save the lives of the many prey animals like wildebeests, zebras, and buffalos in the local area that would otherwise be killed in order to keep the animals at the top ... (Date published: Sep 9, 2015)\n\nWilliam MacAskill\u2019s movement set out to help the global poor. Now his followers fret about runaway A.I. Gideon Lewis-Kraus writes about whether they have seen the threats clearly, or lost their way. (Date published: Aug 8, 2022)\n\nWilliam David MacAskill (n\u00e9 Crouch; born 24 March 1987) [2] is a Scottish philosopher and author, as well as one of the originators of the effective altruism movement. [3] [4] [5] He was a Research Fellow at the Global Priorities Institute at the University of Oxford, co-founded Giving What We Can, the Centre for Effective Altruism and 80,000 Hours, [6] and is the author of Doing Good Better ...\n\nWilliam MacAskill\u2019s new book What We Owe the Future is an expedition into the distant future of humanity. To get on board, one is to imagine oneself having lived through every human life that has been and is likely to come as segments of one\u2019s own life. One would then have been a hunter-gatherer, a coloniser, a small-pox survivor, and so on ... (Date published: Jun 15, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. It's December 1st, 2024, leaving only 30 days until the end of 2024\n2. The switch from Henry Cavill to Liam Hemsworth as Geralt has been confirmed\n3. Previous seasons had approximately 2-year gaps between releases\n4. Season 3 faced delays due to COVID and writer strikes\n5. Multiple recent articles (from May-Nov 2024) discuss Season 4 but none mention a concrete release date\n6. The show hasn't been cancelled\n7. Previous seasons of The Witcher were major hits for Netflix\n\n\n\n1. With only 30 days left in 2024, the lack of any announced release date is a very strong negative signal (9/10)\n2. Major cast changes typically require additional production time for adjustments and reshoots (7/10)\n3. The historical 2-year gap between seasons suggests a 2025 release would be more likely (6/10)\n4. Netflix typically promotes their major shows weeks or months in advance, which hasn't happened yet (8/10)\n\n\n\n1. The show is actively in production and hasn't been cancelled (4/10)\n2. Netflix occasionally does surprise releases for high-profile content (2/10)\n3. They might release a single episode as a \"preview\" or special (2/10)\n\n\n\nThe timing is the critical factor here. With only 30 days remaining in 2024 and no announced release date for a major show, it would be extremely unusual for Netflix to launch Season 4 without any marketing buildup. The continual coverage of the Hemsworth transition without mention of imminent release strongly suggests the show isn't ready for 2024 release.\n\nMajor streaming services typically have their holiday season content planned and announced well in advance. The absence of The Witcher Season 4 from any end-of-year promotional materials is telling.\n\nThe show's high profile and the controversial cast change make it especially unlikely that Netflix would opt for a surprise release strategy.\n\n\n0.03\n\n\nLooking at this from a base rate perspective:\n- For major Netflix series, what percentage release with less than 30 days notice? Extremely rare.\n- What percentage of shows with lead actor changes release ahead of schedule rather than being delayed? Very low.\n- How often does Netflix release major series in late December without prior announcement? Almost never.\n\nThe only reasonable path to a YES would be a surprise single-episode release or preview, which Netflix has done occasionally but rarely. Even this seems highly unlikely given the significance of the cast change and Netflix's likely desire to market this transition extensively.\n\nMy tentative probability of 3% actually seems slightly high given these considerations. The combination of:\n1. Extremely short remaining timeframe\n2. No marketing\n3. Major cast transition\n4. Historical release patterns\nMakes this closer to a 1% scenario.\n\n\n*0.01*", "probability": 0.01, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/KristianTashkov/will-netflix-release-witcher-season", "market_probability": 0.15001117534306532, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Netflix release Witcher Season 4 by end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nResolves YES if there is even a single released episode on Netflix by end of 2024.\n\nResolves NO if the show is officially cancelled by creators and announced as such or on January 1st 2025 if there are no new episodes released.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2025-01-01\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Pat Scott\ud83e\ude74 (2023-08-12): they're changing the lead, right? that's a time cost on its own. and it's been about two years per season, what with covid and now writer strike\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Hemsworth is thrilled about this new adventure. \u201cAs a Witcher fan, I\u2019m over the moon about the opportunity to play Geralt of Rivia,\u201d he said in a statement. \u201cHenry Cavill has been an incredible Geralt, and I\u2019m honored that he\u2019s handing me the reins and allowing me to take up the White Wolf\u2019s blades for the next chapter of his adventure. (Date published: May 22, 2024)\n- When The Witcher returns for Season 4, there\u2019ll be a major change in store for viewers: Henry Cavill, who played the titular witcher Geralt of Rivia for the first three seasons, will be replaced ... (Date published: Sep 25, 2024)\n- One very big change is on the way for the fourth season of Netflix's \"The Witcher,\" following the exit of star Henry Cavill at the end of season 3. Liam Hemsworth takes over the role of the title ... (Date published: Nov 1, 2024)\n- Here's all the details on The Witcher season 4 release date, cast, plot, and more. ... Yes, Henry Cavill has left the series and is being replaced by Liam Hemsworth from here on out. (Date published: Jul 3, 2024)\n- The Witcher Season 4 is going to be a major game-changer for the Netflix hit. Original series star Henry Cavill will be gone, with The Hunger Games\u2018s star Liam Hemsworth replacing him in the key ... (Date published: Jul 27, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Netflix release Witcher Season 4 by end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"witcher season 4 henry cavill replacement release date\"", "search_results": "Hemsworth is thrilled about this new adventure. \u201cAs a Witcher fan, I\u2019m over the moon about the opportunity to play Geralt of Rivia,\u201d he said in a statement. \u201cHenry Cavill has been an incredible Geralt, and I\u2019m honored that he\u2019s handing me the reins and allowing me to take up the White Wolf\u2019s blades for the next chapter of his adventure. (Date published: May 22, 2024)\n\nWhen The Witcher returns for Season 4, there\u2019ll be a major change in store for viewers: Henry Cavill, who played the titular witcher Geralt of Rivia for the first three seasons, will be replaced ... (Date published: Sep 25, 2024)\n\nOne very big change is on the way for the fourth season of Netflix's \"The Witcher,\" following the exit of star Henry Cavill at the end of season 3. Liam Hemsworth takes over the role of the title ... (Date published: Nov 1, 2024)\n\nHere's all the details on The Witcher season 4 release date, cast, plot, and more. ... Yes, Henry Cavill has left the series and is being replaced by Liam Hemsworth from here on out. (Date published: Jul 3, 2024)\n\nThe Witcher Season 4 is going to be a major game-changer for the Netflix hit. Original series star Henry Cavill will be gone, with The Hunger Games\u2018s star Liam Hemsworth replacing him in the key ... (Date published: Jul 27, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me help forecast this question following the structured approach.\n\n\n1. Object was shot down on Feb 10, 2023 over Alaska's northern coast\n2. It was flying at 40,000 feet, roughly car-sized\n3. Shot down by F-22 using sidewinder missile\n4. Lacked propulsion/control systems according to officials\n5. North Korea has shown interest in balloon technology as per NK News article\n6. Biden made remarks about aerial objects on Feb 16, 2023\n7. Object fell into Beaufort Sea after being shot down\n8. Object posed potential risk to civilian aircraft according to DoD\n9. Details about the object remain scarce in official communications\n10. Timing coincided with period of heightened tension over aerial objects\n\n\n\n1. Lack of propulsion/control systems suggests primitive technology, while NK typically demonstrates more sophisticated capabilities (7/10)\n2. Location over Alaska makes little strategic sense for NK given their usual focus areas and technical capabilities (8/10)\n3. No evidence or claims of NK origin have emerged in nearly 2 years since incident (9/10)\n4. NK typically claims or hints at their technological achievements, but remained silent on this (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. NK has shown interest in balloon technology for military purposes (4/10)\n2. Timing coincided with period of increased aerial intrusions and tensions (3/10)\n3. Object's primitive nature could align with NK's limited resources compared to other powers (2/10)\n\n\n\nThe geographic and technological aspects strongly argue against NK origin. Alaska is an unusual target for NK capabilities, being far from their usual sphere of operations. The silence from NK is particularly telling - they typically showcase or hint at their technological achievements.\n\nThe lack of any evidence or claims of NK involvement in nearly 2 years since the incident significantly reduces the likelihood. The primitive nature of the object could point to NK's limited resources, but this same characteristic could apply to many other sources, including civilian ones.\n\nThe temporal proximity to other aerial incidents (like Chinese balloons) suggests this may have been part of that broader context rather than a separate NK initiative.\n\n\n0.08\n\n\nReviewing my initial assessment:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: NK's historical frequency of deploying objects over US territory is extremely low\n2. Geographic constraints: NK's demonstrated reach typically doesn't extend to Alaska\n3. Time factor: The complete absence of evidence or claims over a long period (nearly 2 years) further reduces probability\n4. Alternative explanations: Many other actors (state and non-state) could be responsible\n5. Information environment: If there was credible evidence of NK origin, it likely would have emerged given the high attention to aerial objects during this period\n\nThe 0.08 initial probability might actually be too high given these factors, particularly the base rate and geographic considerations. The complete lack of supporting evidence or claims over an extended period, combined with NK's typical behavior patterns, suggests an even lower probability is warranted.\n\n\n*0.03*", "probability": 0.03, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/footgun/is-the-unidentified-carsized-object-05b6a766bc30", "market_probability": 0.03599946053704969, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nIs the Unidentified Car-sized Object over Alaska of North Korean origin?\n \n**Description:**\nhttps://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/us-object-alaska-balloon-china-car-pentagon-white-house-3271011\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- footgun (2023-02-12): https://www.nknews.org/2023/02/why-balloons-could-be-the-next-weapon-in-north-koreas-ever-expanding-arsenal/\n- footgun (2023-02-16): https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/16/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-united-states-response-to-recent-aerial-objects/\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- On February 10, 2023, the United States Air Force shot down a high-altitude object that had entered U.S. airspace over Alaska a day before. The object was shot down onto the Beaufort Sea.The Department of Defense said it was the size of a small car and flying northeast at approximately 40,000 feet (12,000 m), posing a risk to civilian flight. On February 16, 2023, US President Joe Biden stated ...\n- Unidentified flying objects - timeline ... US downs another object off northern Alaska which officials said lacked any system of propulsion or control. ... 7 Nov 2024. US & Canada. (Date published: Feb 12, 2023)\n- An unidentified object was shot down 10 miles off the frozen coast of Alaska on Friday afternoon, US officials announced, but details about the object are scarce. (Date published: Feb 11, 2023)\n- A sidewinder missile fired by an F-22 warplane blew up the object of unknown origin, the US says. ... shoot down an unidentified \"high-altitude object\" off Alaska on Friday, the White House says ... (Date published: Feb 10, 2023)\n- A sidewinder missile fired by an F-22 warplane blew up the object of unknown origin, the US says. ... He said that the object was flying at 40,000ft (12,000m) over the northern coast of Alaska ... (Date published: Feb 10, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nIs the Unidentified Car-sized Object over Alaska of North Korean origin?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Alaska unidentified flying object 2024 origin\"", "search_results": "On February 10, 2023, the United States Air Force shot down a high-altitude object that had entered U.S. airspace over Alaska a day before. The object was shot down onto the Beaufort Sea.The Department of Defense said it was the size of a small car and flying northeast at approximately 40,000 feet (12,000 m), posing a risk to civilian flight. On February 16, 2023, US President Joe Biden stated ...\n\nUnidentified flying objects - timeline ... US downs another object off northern Alaska which officials said lacked any system of propulsion or control. ... 7 Nov 2024. US & Canada. (Date published: Feb 12, 2023)\n\nAn unidentified object was shot down 10 miles off the frozen coast of Alaska on Friday afternoon, US officials announced, but details about the object are scarce. (Date published: Feb 11, 2023)\n\nA sidewinder missile fired by an F-22 warplane blew up the object of unknown origin, the US says. ... shoot down an unidentified \"high-altitude object\" off Alaska on Friday, the White House says ... (Date published: Feb 10, 2023)\n\nA sidewinder missile fired by an F-22 warplane blew up the object of unknown origin, the US says. ... He said that the object was flying at 40,000ft (12,000m) over the northern coast of Alaska ... (Date published: Feb 10, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Question asks about reaching 1500 SAT score performance by open-source AI models by 2025\n2. Current best closed-source models are rumored at ~1000 SAT score level\n3. Recent developments show strong progress in open-source AI:\n - Llama 3, DBRX, Mistral achieving \"exceptional results\"\n - Open-source models showing competitive performance with fewer parameters\n4. SAT scoring ranges from 400-1600, with 1500+ being extremely high performance\n5. Time constraint is about 1 year (from Dec 2024 to end of 2025)\n6. Open source community has shown rapid iteration and improvement cycles\n7. Some leading models use hybrid licensing approaches (Apache 2.0 for smaller models, restricted for larger ones)\n\n\n\n1. The gap between current performance (~1000) and target (1500) is very large, representing a dramatic improvement needed in a short time (8/10)\n2. Higher SAT scores become exponentially harder to achieve, and 1500+ requires sophisticated reasoning and problem-solving (7/10)\n3. Open-source models typically lag behind closed-source counterparts in absolute performance (6/10)\n4. SAT problems require complex multi-step reasoning and careful handling of edge cases, which current models struggle with (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Open-source AI development has shown remarkable acceleration in 2023-2024 (7/10)\n2. Multiple competitive players (Llama, DBRX, Mistral) are pushing innovation in open-source space (6/10)\n3. One year is a significant time in current AI development pace (5/10)\n4. The 1000 score rumor suggests the fundamental architecture can handle SAT-style problems (4/10)\n\n\n\nThe core challenge here is whether open-source models can bridge a ~500 point SAT gap in approximately one year. This represents not just an incremental improvement but a fundamental leap in capability.\n\nThe acceleration in open-source AI development is notable, but the SAT scoring system is highly non-linear - improving from 1000 to 1500 is much harder than improving from 500 to 1000. The target score of 1500 represents near-perfect performance, requiring sophisticated reasoning across multiple domains.\n\nThe presence of multiple competitive open-source players suggests parallel innovation paths, which increases chances of breakthrough, but the fundamental challenge of complex reasoning remains significant.\n\nWe should also consider that the ~1000 score rumor might be optimistic or based on cherry-picked results.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nExamining this prediction against historical precedent:\n- The rate of improvement in AI capabilities has consistently surprised to the upside\n- However, tasks requiring precise reasoning often prove more resistant to improvement than expected\n- The one-year timeframe is quite short for such a dramatic improvement\n- The requirement for open-source availability adds additional constraint\n\nThe gap between current and target performance (500 points) represents multiple qualitative improvements in reasoning capability. While open-source models have shown impressive progress, achieving near-perfect SAT performance requires solving fundamental challenges in reasoning and problem-solving that haven't been demonstrated at scale.\n\nThe prior probability for such a dramatic improvement in a specific, challenging metric within one year should be quite low. The case-specific information (rapid open-source progress, multiple competitive efforts) provides some positive evidence but not enough to justify a high probability.\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Gigacasting/ai-1500-sat-by-2025-opensource", "market_probability": 0.7614237544993583, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nAI: 1500 SAT by 2025 (open-source)\n \n**Description:**\nOpen-source model, rumored at ~1000 for best closed source\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Yona (2022-12-26): Is the model itself open source or the code used to train it?\n- Gigacasting (2022-12-30): Open-source weights \n- Yona (2023-05-04): How good is LLaMa?\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Neural Network Models for predicting SAT scores using PyTorch frameworks with regression and classification - huy310304/SAT-score-prediction ... Fund open source developers The ReadME Project. GitHub community articles Repositories. ... Clean stuff, save model and create UI, deploy w Docker to actually host, run, save and compare results. Table ...\n- Finally, Eureka and the set of associated benchmarks are only the initial snapshot of an effort that aims at reliably measuring progress in AI. Our team is excited about further collaborations with the open-source community and research, with the goal of sharing and extending current measurements for new capabilities and models. Opens in a new tab (Date published: Sep 17, 2024)\n- Source: LMSys leaderboard, filtered for English-language prompts (accessed April 26, 2024) The ascent of open-source AI was arguably 2023\u2019s most exciting development. While OpenAI once seemed untouchable, alternatives like Llama 3, Databricks\u2019 DBRX, and Mistral are achieving exceptional results with fewer parameters and lower compute costs.As open- and closed-source model performance ... (Date published: Apr 26, 2024)\n- While the smaller model is released under the Apache 2.0 license \u2013 generally considered to fit the definition of open-source - the larger model has had some conditions attached to its use and ... (Date published: May 7, 2024)\n- Best Open Source Generative AI Models . We have curated a list of the best open source Models available in the market today: Stable Diffusion. Stable Diffusion is one of the best open-source models that has taken the creative world by storm. Developed by Stability AI and released in 2022, it was trained on a massive dataset of images and their ... (Date published: May 27, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nAI: 1500 SAT by 2025 (open-source)\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"open source AI model SAT score 2024-2025 progress\"", "search_results": "Neural Network Models for predicting SAT scores using PyTorch frameworks with regression and classification - huy310304/SAT-score-prediction ... Fund open source developers The ReadME Project. GitHub community articles Repositories. ... Clean stuff, save model and create UI, deploy w Docker to actually host, run, save and compare results. Table ...\n\nFinally, Eureka and the set of associated benchmarks are only the initial snapshot of an effort that aims at reliably measuring progress in AI. Our team is excited about further collaborations with the open-source community and research, with the goal of sharing and extending current measurements for new capabilities and models. Opens in a new tab (Date published: Sep 17, 2024)\n\nSource: LMSys leaderboard, filtered for English-language prompts (accessed April 26, 2024) The ascent of open-source AI was arguably 2023\u2019s most exciting development. While OpenAI once seemed untouchable, alternatives like Llama 3, Databricks\u2019 DBRX, and Mistral are achieving exceptional results with fewer parameters and lower compute costs.As open- and closed-source model performance ... (Date published: Apr 26, 2024)\n\nWhile the smaller model is released under the Apache 2.0 license \u2013 generally considered to fit the definition of open-source - the larger model has had some conditions attached to its use and ... (Date published: May 7, 2024)\n\nBest Open Source Generative AI Models . We have curated a list of the best open source Models available in the market today: Stable Diffusion. Stable Diffusion is one of the best open-source models that has taken the creative world by storm. Developed by Stability AI and released in 2022, it was trained on a massive dataset of images and their ... (Date published: May 27, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. Elections were held in Pakistan on February 8, 2024\n2. Nawaz Sharif was previously Prime Minister of Pakistan multiple times\n3. Sharif had been disqualified due to a lifetime ban for individuals with criminal convictions, but courts lifted this hurdle in January 2024\n4. As of January 2024, polling showed Sharif was gaining popularity, though not the most popular politician nationally\n5. There was significant political unrest in Pakistan following Imran Khan's removal from power\n6. Pakistan has a history of political instability and power transitions\n7. The question asks about being PM in 2024, with only 1 month remaining in the year\n8. News from March 2024 suggests outcomes of the February election were already known\n\n\n\n1. Political instability in Pakistan makes any specific outcome uncertain (7/10)\n2. With only one month left in 2024, the window for becoming PM is very narrow (8/10)\n3. Even if Sharif's party performed well in elections, coalition-building and political maneuvering can delay PM selection (6/10)\n4. Historical precedent shows Pakistan's political transitions can be unpredictable and face multiple obstacles (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Court clearance in January 2024 removed major legal barriers to Sharif's candidacy (8/10)\n2. Sharif's increasing popularity suggested strong electoral prospects (6/10)\n3. As a former PM with extensive political experience, he has the connections and knowledge to navigate coalition-building (7/10)\n4. The existence of March 2024 news articles implies the election's outcome was already determined (5/10)\n\n\n\nGiven the December 1, 2024 forecast date, we're essentially looking backward at known outcomes. The presence of March 2024 news coverage suggests the election results and subsequent PM selection should be known facts, though the sources don't explicitly state the outcome.\n\nThe key uncertainty stems from the limited information provided about post-election developments. However, given this is a retrospective forecast with less than a month remaining in 2024, we can reasonably assume that if Sharif became PM after the February elections, he would still be PM in December.\n\nThe main consideration is whether we can infer from the available information (particularly the March news reference) whether Sharif actually became PM following the February elections. While the sources don't directly confirm this, the context and tone suggest this may have been the case.\n\n\n0.85\n\n\nReviewing my initial probability:\n\n1. Base rate considerations: Pakistan has had multiple PMs in recent years, and transitions of power are relatively common, suggesting we shouldn't be too confident about any specific person holding the position.\n\n2. Given we're forecasting from December 2024, most of the year's events should be known. The presence of March 2024 news suggests we should have more certainty about the outcome than my initial forecast reflects.\n\n3. The narrow remaining timeframe (one month) means we're essentially asking \"Is Sharif PM right now?\" rather than making a future prediction.\n\n4. The sources, while not explicit, provide strong hints about the election outcome and Sharif's position, and there's no indication of major disruptions after March 2024.\n\nGiven these factors, my initial probability may have been too low. While Pakistan's political instability warrants some uncertainty, the retrospective nature of this forecast and the context of the sources suggest higher confidence is warranted.\n\n\n*0.95*", "probability": 0.95, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/DismalScientist/will-nawaz-sharif-be-prime-minister", "market_probability": 0.2046734005021942, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Nawaz Sharif be prime minister of Pakistan in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Archibald Crone (2024-01-18): So much why over here:\\nSome parallel markets:\n- notarealuser (2024-03-03): https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1764242179948437908?t=uRYzMai1txBRz-n9u6XBAg&s=19\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Nawaz, Tareen cleared to stand in elections Article 62(1)(f), which sets the precondition for a member of parliament to be \u201csadiq and ameen\u201d (honest and righteous), is the same provision under ... (Date published: Jan 8, 2024)\n- Pakistan court lifts final hurdle for ex-PM Sharif to run 01/08/2024 January 8, 2024. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had been disqualified due to a lifetime ban for individuals with criminal ... (Date published: Jan 8, 2024)\n- And yet, a Gallup Pakistan poll - released in January 2024 - found he was still the most popular politician nationally, though Mr Sharif had closed the gap considerably in the last six months.\n- General elections, originally scheduled to be held in 2023, [4] were held in Pakistan on 8 February 2024 to elect the members of the 16th National Assembly.The Election Commission of Pakistan announced the detailed schedule on 15 December 2023. [5]The elections were held following two years of political unrest after Prime Minister Imran Khan of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was removed ...\n- Islamabad, Pakistan \u2014 Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appears poised to compete in the country\u2019s February 8 legislative elections that could see him return to power, after the ... (Date published: Jan 9, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Nawaz Sharif be prime minister of Pakistan in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Nawaz Sharif Pakistan election 2024 eligibility status", "search_results": "Nawaz, Tareen cleared to stand in elections Article 62(1)(f), which sets the precondition for a member of parliament to be \u201csadiq and ameen\u201d (honest and righteous), is the same provision under ... (Date published: Jan 8, 2024)\n\nPakistan court lifts final hurdle for ex-PM Sharif to run 01/08/2024 January 8, 2024. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had been disqualified due to a lifetime ban for individuals with criminal ... (Date published: Jan 8, 2024)\n\nAnd yet, a Gallup Pakistan poll - released in January 2024 - found he was still the most popular politician nationally, though Mr Sharif had closed the gap considerably in the last six months.\n\nGeneral elections, originally scheduled to be held in 2023, [4] were held in Pakistan on 8 February 2024 to elect the members of the 16th National Assembly.The Election Commission of Pakistan announced the detailed schedule on 15 December 2023. [5]The elections were held following two years of political unrest after Prime Minister Imran Khan of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was removed ...\n\nIslamabad, Pakistan \u2014 Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appears poised to compete in the country\u2019s February 8 legislative elections that could see him return to power, after the ... (Date published: Jan 9, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Worldcoin has faced regulatory challenges and suspensions in European countries during 2024\n2. Worldcoin implemented new security measures for biometric data in May 2024\n3. The project is co-founded by Sam Altman, who is also CEO of OpenAI\n4. As of late 2024, Worldcoin's operations remain significantly limited\n5. There are ongoing debates about GDPR compliance and data protection\n6. Worldcoin has a grant program for builders (referenced in comments)\n7. Organizing a global referendum would require:\n - Sufficient verified users\n - Technical infrastructure for secure voting\n - International coordination\n - Legal framework for implementation\n8. Only about 4 weeks remain in 2024 as of the forecast date\n\n\n\n1. Extreme time constraint - organizing a global referendum in under 4 weeks is nearly impossible (9/10)\n2. Regulatory hurdles and suspended operations in multiple countries prevent sufficient user verification (8/10)\n3. No indication of preparatory work for such a referendum in any sources (7/10)\n4. Complex international coordination required would take months or years to arrange (8/10)\n5. Worldcoin's ties to OpenAI via Altman make it unlikely they'd facilitate an AGI ban vote (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Grant program shows interest in voting applications (3/10)\n2. New security measures could enable secure voting infrastructure (2/10)\n3. Growing concerns about AI safety might motivate rapid action (2/10)\n\n\n\nThe time constraint alone makes this extremely improbable. Even if all other factors were favorable, organizing a global referendum of this magnitude in less than 4 weeks would be virtually impossible. The technical, legal, and logistical requirements are enormous.\n\nThe regulatory challenges Worldcoin faces compound this impossibility. With operations suspended in multiple jurisdictions, they lack the necessary user base and operational capacity to conduct such a referendum.\n\nThe conjunction of required conditions is particularly damning:\n- Sufficient verified users (currently lacking)\n- Working voting infrastructure (not demonstrated)\n- International coordination (no evidence of preparation)\n- Legal framework (non-existent)\n- All within 4 weeks\n\nEach of these conditions has a low individual probability, and their conjunction makes the overall probability vanishingly small.\n\n\n0.001\n\n\nLet's examine this forecast through different lenses:\n\nBase rate consideration: Global referendums of any kind are extremely rare, typically taking years to organize. The fastest major international coordinated actions (like COVID vaccine rollout) took months even with unprecedented urgency.\n\nThe time constraint provides a hard upper bound on probability. Even if we assumed strong motivation and preparation (which we don't see evidence for), the logistics of organizing this in 4 weeks would be nearly impossible.\n\nWe should consider unknown unknowns and black swan events, but even these would struggle against the hard time constraint. The conjunction of required conditions and the extreme time pressure justify a probability in the fraction of a percent range.\n\nSome might argue this is overconfident, but given the concrete deadline and the magnitude of required coordination, a higher probability would actually demonstrate overconfidence in the possibility of organizing such an enormous undertaking in weeks.\n\n\n*0.001*", "probability": 0.001, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/agentofuser/will-there-be-a-referendum-of-world", "market_probability": 0.15178493493863465, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill there be a referendum of Worldcoin-verified voters about a global ban on frontier AI/AGI development before 2025?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- agentofuser (2024-03-15): https://worldcoin.org/blog/worldcoin/worldcoin-builders-wave0-grant-recipients-advancing-tech-tree#votexx\n- m (2024-03-19): They wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- The next few weeks could be pivotal for Worldcoin, the controversial eyeball-scanning crypto venture co-founded by OpenAI\u2019s Sam Altman, whose operations remain almost entirely shuttered in the ... (Date published: Jun 4, 2024)\n- Authorities in other European countries like Spain and Portugal temporarily suspended Worldcoin operations in 2024 over concerns about processing sensitive data. (Date published: Oct 7, 2024)\n- Worldcoin is already causing debate in the crypto space, and will do so for the forseeable future ... Nov 28, 2024, 06:29am EST. ... (AGI) will enter the marketplace sooner than many experts might ... (Date published: Jul 30, 2023)\n- The sticking point: how its iris-photographing devices comply with the EU\u2019s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The outcome, which is due to be presented in mid-September, will be a critical juncture in Worldcoin\u2019s mission to create a global digital identity system, says BayLDA president Michael Will in an interview with Sifted. (Date published: Aug 27, 2024)\n- On May 15, 2024, Worldcoin announced its new secure multi-party computation system, which will enhance the security and privacy of biometric data, including its iris scans. Using the new SMPC protocol, iris codes are encrypted into various parts and sent to multiple parties for holding, creating a decentralized identity. ... Worldcoin plans to ... (Date published: May 16, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill there be a referendum of Worldcoin-verified voters about a global ban on frontier AI/AGI development before 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Worldcoin AGI regulation referendum plans 2024\"", "search_results": "The next few weeks could be pivotal for Worldcoin, the controversial eyeball-scanning crypto venture co-founded by OpenAI\u2019s Sam Altman, whose operations remain almost entirely shuttered in the ... (Date published: Jun 4, 2024)\n\nAuthorities in other European countries like Spain and Portugal temporarily suspended Worldcoin operations in 2024 over concerns about processing sensitive data. (Date published: Oct 7, 2024)\n\nWorldcoin is already causing debate in the crypto space, and will do so for the forseeable future ... Nov 28, 2024, 06:29am EST. ... (AGI) will enter the marketplace sooner than many experts might ... (Date published: Jul 30, 2023)\n\nThe sticking point: how its iris-photographing devices comply with the EU\u2019s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The outcome, which is due to be presented in mid-September, will be a critical juncture in Worldcoin\u2019s mission to create a global digital identity system, says BayLDA president Michael Will in an interview with Sifted. (Date published: Aug 27, 2024)\n\nOn May 15, 2024, Worldcoin announced its new secure multi-party computation system, which will enhance the security and privacy of biometric data, including its iris scans. Using the new SMPC protocol, iris codes are encrypted into various parts and sent to multiple parties for holding, creating a decentralized identity. ... Worldcoin plans to ... (Date published: May 16, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Only 32 chapters were released in 2023\n2. Historical data shows only 5 years out of 27 had increased chapter counts from previous year\n3. Standard schedule is 3 chapters followed by 1 break\n4. Recent health issues caused a two-week break in November 2024\n5. Oda has additional commitments like involvement with One Piece Live Action\n6. There's confirmation of ongoing publication through at least chapter 1132 in 2024\n7. Multiple breaks have been officially scheduled/announced throughout 2024\n8. The series has shown a general trend toward fewer chapters per year over the past decade\n9. Starting 2024, there were signs of returning to the 3:1 schedule\n10. Global supply chain issues that affected 2023 output have largely resolved\n\n\n\n1. Historical precedent is strongly against increase - only 18.5% of years show increases (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Recent health issues in November 2024 suggest ongoing health concerns (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Additional commitments with Live Action and other projects continue to divide Oda's attention (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Long-term trend shows decreasing chapter counts over the past decade (Strength: 7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Early 2024 showed return to regular 3:1 schedule (Strength: 6/10)\n2. Supply chain issues that affected 2023 have improved (Strength: 5/10)\n3. 32 is a relatively low bar compared to historical averages (Strength: 4/10)\n4. Confirmed chapters through 1132 suggest steady publication pace (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key tension here is between historical patterns and current year-specific factors. The historical data showing only 18.5% of years with increases is particularly compelling, especially given the long-term downward trend. However, we need to consider that 2023's 32 chapters was unusually low, making it easier to exceed.\n\nThe confirmed chapters through 1132 and early-year return to 3:1 schedule suggest some stability, but the November health break is a significant red flag. Health issues tend to compound rather than resolve quickly at Oda's age and workload.\n\nThe base rate of 18.5% increases needs to be adjusted for:\n1. The unusually low 2023 baseline\n2. Improved supply chain conditions\n3. Countervailing health concerns\n4. Competing commitments\n\nThese factors roughly balance each other out, with health concerns being particularly significant.\n\n\n0.25\n\n\nReviewing this forecast:\n\n1. The base rate of 18.5% provides a strong anchor\n2. The November health break is particularly concerning as it comes late in the year, suggesting potential ongoing issues\n3. While supply chain improvements help, they're less impactful than health and workload factors\n4. The early-year return to 3:1 schedule proved unsustainable given the November break\n\nMy initial forecast of 25% appears well-calibrated. It's modestly higher than the base rate of 18.5% to account for the unusually low 2023 baseline and supply chain improvements, but still reflects the significant challenges and historical patterns.\n\nOne additional consideration is that health issues reported in November 2024 may lead to additional breaks in December, making the target even harder to reach.\n\n\n*0.23*", "probability": 0.23, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/OnePieceExplained/will-there-be-more-than-32-new-chap", "market_probability": 0.28047627017374266, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill there be more than 32 new chapters of One Piece in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nOver the last decade, we've gone from around 40 chapters of One Piece per year to only 32 chapters in 2023. There are multiple factors for this decrease ranging from the Covid-19 pandemic to global supply chain issues to Oda's personal health and more recently his focus being needed on other projects such as the One Piece Live Action series. So far, with 2024, we seem to be back on track with his typical 3 chapters to 1 break schedule, but nothing is certain. \n\nWill be resolved upon the release of the final chapter of 2024.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- duck_master (2024-03-17): A quick calculation: \\nOne Piece\\n has been around for 27 years. In that time, in only 5 years has the number of chapters strictly increased from the previous year (namely 1998, 2011, 2012, 2016, and 2021). This suggests that the probability should be about 5/27 =\\n 18%\\n.\\nAlso see this market for arb opportunities:\\nhttps://manifold.markets/strutheo/will-one-piece-release-35-or-more-c\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Manga Schedule; Anime Schedule; World Globe; Heights; More. World Government; Charlotte Family ... One Piece Weekly Schedule for 2024. Without further delay, continuing our tradition since 2019, we unveil the anticipated One Piece chapter release schedule for the year 2024! ... 2024: Week 16: Oda Break: 20: April 15, 2024: Week 17: 1112: April ... (Date published: Dec 17, 2023)\n- Note: This article has been updated with new information from Eiichiro Oda's official account. After quite a bit of back and forth earlier this week, Sh\u014dnen Jump has finally confirmed that One Piece's manga is indeed going on hiatus, and the official statement has sparked widespread concern for Oda's health.Fans of One Piece were recently caught off guard when Manga Plus unexpectedly changed ... (Date published: Nov 14, 2024)\n- The post One Piece Manga Release Schedule 2024: All Delays, Breaks, & Chapter Releases appeared first on ComingSoon.net - Movie Trailers, TV & Streaming News, and More. News Today's news (Date published: Apr 2, 2024)\n- As of June 24, 2024, the One Piece manga is not on break this week. Chapter 1119 will be out in the United States on Sunday, June 30. After the release of chapter 1111, creator Eiichiro Oda ... (Date published: Apr 2, 2024)\n- One Piece Chapter 1132 was supposed to be released this weekend on November 17, 2024, however, it won't. Shonen Jump has released an official statement that the One Piece manga will be on a two-week-long break. The reason is Eiichiro Oda's physical health issues, for which the author is taking a break to recover. (Date published: Nov 14, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill there be more than 32 new chapters of One Piece in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"One Piece manga chapter count 2024 Eiichiro Oda health schedule\"", "search_results": "Manga Schedule; Anime Schedule; World Globe; Heights; More. World Government; Charlotte Family ... One Piece Weekly Schedule for 2024. Without further delay, continuing our tradition since 2019, we unveil the anticipated One Piece chapter release schedule for the year 2024! ... 2024: Week 16: Oda Break: 20: April 15, 2024: Week 17: 1112: April ... (Date published: Dec 17, 2023)\n\nNote: This article has been updated with new information from Eiichiro Oda's official account. After quite a bit of back and forth earlier this week, Sh\u014dnen Jump has finally confirmed that One Piece's manga is indeed going on hiatus, and the official statement has sparked widespread concern for Oda's health.Fans of One Piece were recently caught off guard when Manga Plus unexpectedly changed ... (Date published: Nov 14, 2024)\n\nThe post One Piece Manga Release Schedule 2024: All Delays, Breaks, & Chapter Releases appeared first on ComingSoon.net - Movie Trailers, TV & Streaming News, and More. News Today's news (Date published: Apr 2, 2024)\n\nAs of June 24, 2024, the One Piece manga is not on break this week. Chapter 1119 will be out in the United States on Sunday, June 30. After the release of chapter 1111, creator Eiichiro Oda ... (Date published: Apr 2, 2024)\n\nOne Piece Chapter 1132 was supposed to be released this weekend on November 17, 2024, however, it won't. Shonen Jump has released an official statement that the One Piece manga will be on a two-week-long break. The reason is Eiichiro Oda's physical health issues, for which the author is taking a break to recover. (Date published: Nov 14, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. The UK implemented nationwide lockdowns during COVID-19, with the first major lockdown announced on March 23rd, 2020\n2. The question's resolution date is December 31, 2024, meaning we're looking at a ~1 month window\n3. Early UK COVID response was criticized for ineffective quarantine measures\n4. Experts warn about the possibility of future animal-to-human virus transmission causing pandemics\n5. The UK, like most countries, has moved away from lockdown strategies since 2022\n6. Current COVID variants are generally less severe due to population immunity and vaccination\n7. The UK healthcare system has adapted and developed better protocols for managing COVID cases\n\n\n\n1. The extremely short timeframe (1 month) makes any lockdown very unlikely (Strength: 9/10)\n2. There's strong political resistance to implementing lockdowns again given their economic and social costs (Strength: 8/10)\n3. Current COVID variants are less severe and population immunity is high (Strength: 7/10)\n4. Healthcare systems are better prepared with treatments and protocols (Strength: 7/10)\n5. The UK government has shifted away from restrictive measures toward living with COVID (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. A new, highly virulent COVID variant could emerge (Strength: 3/10)\n2. Winter months increase respiratory disease transmission (Strength: 4/10)\n3. Healthcare system could become overwhelmed during winter surge (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe timeframe is critically important here - we're only looking at December 2024, which gives extremely limited time for a series of events that would need to occur for a lockdown:\n1. A new dangerous variant would need to emerge\n2. It would need to spread to the UK\n3. It would need to cause severe enough outcomes\n4. Political will would need to gather for lockdown measures\n5. Implementation would need to occur\n\nEach of these steps takes time, and the conjunction of all of them happening within one month is extremely improbable. Even if a concerning variant emerged today, the typical timeline from emergence to policy response has historically been months, not weeks.\n\n\n0.01\n\n\nReviewing my initial estimate:\n\nBase rates: The UK hasn't implemented COVID lockdowns since early 2022, despite multiple variants and waves. The bar for implementing such measures has risen substantially.\n\nThe extremely short timeframe is the dominant factor here. Even if we imagine a \"worst case\" scenario starting today, the bureaucratic and political process alone would likely extend beyond December 31st.\n\nHowever, I should consider:\n- The winter timing does increase respiratory disease risk\n- Healthcare systems are typically under more strain in December\n- The question specifically asks about \"lockdowns\" which could potentially include very localized measures\n\nThese factors suggest my initial 0.01 might be slightly too low, but not dramatically so. A probability around 0.02-0.03 better reflects the small but non-zero chance of a very rapid response to an extreme scenario.\n\n\n*0.025*", "probability": 0.025, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/NcyRocks/will-there-be-any-more-lockdowns-du-2aa9891073a5", "market_probability": 0.01, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill there be any more lockdowns due to COVID-19 in the UK before 2025?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Early COVID-19 response. The first issue that arose in the UK\u2019s pandemic response, in January and February 2020, was that post-travel quarantining from risk areas was organised ineffectively (Grierson, Citation 2020).Only a marginal number of UK inbound travellers (273 out of 18.1 million) were mandated to quarantine in the three months prior to the first lockdown (Grierson, Citation 2020). (Date published: Oct 21, 2024)\n- Four years after the UK's first COVID lockdown was announced, infectious disease experts explain why it's increasingly likely a virus will \"jump\" from animals to humans and cause another pandemic. (Date published: Mar 23, 2024)\n- Governments implemented many non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to suppress the spread of COVID-19 with varying results. In this paper, country-level daily time series from Our World in Data ... (Date published: Apr 6, 2023)\n- In The Lancet Public Health, Nicholas Davies and colleagues1 make an important contribution to understanding UK COVID-19 policy to date, in particular the need for lockdown. They provide detailed yet concise analyses of a range of physical distancing interventions, alone and in combination, and lockdown measures that restrict movement and limit contacts outside of the home. The authors show ... (Date published: Jun 2, 2020)\n- The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented measures worldwide to control virus transmission. In the UK, on March 23rd 2020, the government announced a nationwide lockdown ordering the public to stay home and leave only for a limited number of reasons, including for exercise (once a day only), to purchase household essentials, for a medical emergency, or to go to work if classed as a key ... (Date published: Aug 5, 2022)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill there be any more lockdowns due to COVID-19 in the UK before 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"UK COVID-19 policy trends 2024 potential lockdown measures\"", "search_results": "Early COVID-19 response. The first issue that arose in the UK\u2019s pandemic response, in January and February 2020, was that post-travel quarantining from risk areas was organised ineffectively (Grierson, Citation 2020).Only a marginal number of UK inbound travellers (273 out of 18.1 million) were mandated to quarantine in the three months prior to the first lockdown (Grierson, Citation 2020). (Date published: Oct 21, 2024)\n\nFour years after the UK's first COVID lockdown was announced, infectious disease experts explain why it's increasingly likely a virus will \"jump\" from animals to humans and cause another pandemic. (Date published: Mar 23, 2024)\n\nGovernments implemented many non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to suppress the spread of COVID-19 with varying results. In this paper, country-level daily time series from Our World in Data ... (Date published: Apr 6, 2023)\n\nIn The Lancet Public Health, Nicholas Davies and colleagues1 make an important contribution to understanding UK COVID-19 policy to date, in particular the need for lockdown. They provide detailed yet concise analyses of a range of physical distancing interventions, alone and in combination, and lockdown measures that restrict movement and limit contacts outside of the home. The authors show ... (Date published: Jun 2, 2020)\n\nThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented measures worldwide to control virus transmission. In the UK, on March 23rd 2020, the government announced a nationwide lockdown ordering the public to stay home and leave only for a limited number of reasons, including for exercise (once a day only), to purchase household essentials, for a medical emergency, or to go to work if classed as a key ... (Date published: Aug 5, 2022)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Xi Jinping has had recent high-level diplomatic engagement with the US, including a meeting with Biden in Peru in November 2024\n2. This was likely their final meeting as Biden's presidency comes to an end\n3. Xi has historically been very selective and controlled about his media appearances\n4. Major Western media interviews with Chinese leaders are extremely rare\n5. The last major US media interview with a Chinese leader was Jiang Zemin's interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes in 2000\n6. Xi has concentrated more power than his recent predecessors and exercises tight control over messaging\n7. US-China relations remain tense despite recent diplomatic engagement\n8. The US is in presidential transition period at the end of 2024\n\n\n\n1. Xi's consistent pattern throughout his leadership has been to avoid unscripted interactions with Western media (Strength: 9/10)\n2. With only one month left in 2024, the logistics and preparations required for such an interview make it highly unlikely (Strength: 8/10)\n3. The uncertain US political transition period makes it an especially risky time for Xi to engage with US media (Strength: 7/10)\n4. Xi's preference for controlled messaging and propaganda through Chinese state media contradicts giving interviews to foreign outlets (Strength: 8/10)\n\n\n\n1. Recent diplomatic engagement shows some willingness to communicate with the US (Strength: 4/10)\n2. Xi might want to shape international perception during US presidential transition (Strength: 3/10)\n3. Historical precedent exists with previous Chinese leaders giving US interviews (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe reasons against strongly outweigh the reasons in favor. The timing is particularly problematic - with only one month left in 2024 and during a US presidential transition period, it would be an unusual time to conduct such an interview. The historical pattern of Xi's media engagement shows a strong preference for controlled environments and messaging through Chinese state media.\n\nWhile recent diplomatic engagement might suggest openness to communication, giving an interview to US media would represent a dramatic departure from Xi's established approach to media relations. The risks (potential challenging questions, unscripted moments) far outweigh any potential benefits, especially given Xi's demonstrated preference for tight message control.\n\n\n0.02\n\n\nLooking at base rates: major Western media interviews with Chinese leaders have been extremely rare (perhaps 2-3 times in the past 30 years). Xi specifically has never given one during his entire tenure, despite numerous opportunities during more stable periods in US-China relations.\n\nThe timing factor is crucial - with only one month remaining in 2024, and during a sensitive transition period in US politics, the window of opportunity is extremely narrow. Even if Xi were to suddenly change his approach to media engagement (which would be surprising), the logistics of arranging such an interview would be challenging in this timeframe.\n\nI considered whether my initial estimate might be too low, but given:\n1. The extremely low historical base rate\n2. Xi's consistent pattern of avoiding Western media\n3. The particularly inappropriate timing (December 2024)\n4. The current state of US-China relations\n\nIf anything, 2% might be slightly high, but it accounts for some residual uncertainty.\n\n\n*0.02*", "probability": 0.02, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/BTE/will-xi-jinping-sit-for-an-intervie-f17a5eb73123", "market_probability": 0.08145476209921, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Xi Jinping sit for an interview with a major US media outlet by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- U.S. President Joe Biden greets President Xi Jinping of China prior to a bilateral meeting at the Delfines Hotel and Convention Center in Lima, Peru, Nov. 16, 2024. (Date published: Nov 18, 2024)\n- The meeting in Peru is Biden and Xi\u2019s last chance to signal the value of ongoing high-level U.S.-China communication \u2014 dialogues it isn\u2019t clear a Trump administration will continue. (Date published: Nov 15, 2024)\n- Xi, of course, knows the United States will have a new president in a few months, but even after that, don\u2019t expect summit meetings or phone calls to rehabilitate the relationship. (Date published: Sep 13, 2024)\n- Chinese President Xi Jinping said a successful partnership between China and the United States is an opportunity for the two countries to be enablers for each other's development rather than an ... (Date published: Oct 16, 2024)\n- Chinese President Xi Jinping has held his final meeting with his outgoing counterpart in the United States, Democrat Joe Biden. But Xi\u2019s words on Saturday seemed directed not simply at Biden but ... (Date published: Nov 17, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Xi Jinping sit for an interview with a major US media outlet by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Xi Jinping US media interview 2024 likelihood diplomatic relations", "search_results": "U.S. President Joe Biden greets President Xi Jinping of China prior to a bilateral meeting at the Delfines Hotel and Convention Center in Lima, Peru, Nov. 16, 2024. (Date published: Nov 18, 2024)\n\nThe meeting in Peru is Biden and Xi\u2019s last chance to signal the value of ongoing high-level U.S.-China communication \u2014 dialogues it isn\u2019t clear a Trump administration will continue. (Date published: Nov 15, 2024)\n\nXi, of course, knows the United States will have a new president in a few months, but even after that, don\u2019t expect summit meetings or phone calls to rehabilitate the relationship. (Date published: Sep 13, 2024)\n\nChinese President Xi Jinping said a successful partnership between China and the United States is an opportunity for the two countries to be enablers for each other's development rather than an ... (Date published: Oct 16, 2024)\n\nChinese President Xi Jinping has held his final meeting with his outgoing counterpart in the United States, Democrat Joe Biden. But Xi\u2019s words on Saturday seemed directed not simply at Biden but ... (Date published: Nov 17, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Latest inflation data shows 2.6% annual rate for October 2024, up from 2.4% in September\n2. Next CPI release scheduled for December 11, 2024 at 8:30 AM ET\n3. Historical context: Inflation was:\n - 7.0% end of 2021\n - 6.5% end of 2022\n - 3.4% end of 2023\n - Showing overall downward trend\n4. The question asks about the last CPI print of the year (December's data, released in January 2025)\n5. Matthew Yglesias predicts 80% probability\n6. Recent months show slight uptick (2.4% to 2.6%)\n\n\n\n1. Recent uptick from 2.4% to 2.6% suggests possible reversal of downward trend (Strength: 7/10)\n2. Only two months left in measurement period, and current reading is close to 3% threshold, leaving little margin for error (Strength: 6/10)\n3. Holiday season spending could put upward pressure on prices (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\n1. Strong historical downward trend over past three years shows consistent progress in inflation reduction (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Fed's continued commitment to price stability and tight monetary policy supports continued disinflation (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Base effects from previous year becoming more favorable (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Current reading of 2.6% provides some buffer below 3% threshold (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\nThe core dynamic here is between momentum (recent uptick) versus the longer-term trend (steady decline). The slight increase from 2.4% to 2.6% is concerning but should be viewed in context of the dramatic decline from 7.0% to current levels.\n\nI need to consider both November and December prints, as the December print (released in January) will be determinative. This creates more uncertainty, as we're forecasting further out.\n\nThe Fed's commitment to maintaining restrictive policy until inflation is firmly under control provides institutional backing for continued disinflation. Base effects from the previous year should also help keep the year-over-year number contained.\n\nThe 3% threshold gives us some margin for error with current 2.6% reading, though not extensive.\n\n\n0.75\n\n\nReviewing my initial forecast:\n\nBase rates are supportive - inflation has been declining consistently for three years. The institutional framework (Fed policy) remains aligned with further disinflation.\n\nMy tentative probability is slightly below Yglesias's 80%. Given his strong track record on economic predictions and likely access to additional expert analysis, this warrants consideration. However, the recent uptick to 2.6% represents new information that he may not have had when making his prediction.\n\nThe question specifies that Matt's evaluation is the source of truth, which somewhat reduces uncertainty about measurement methodology.\n\nThe main risk is that we're forecasting two months out, and recent momentum has been slightly adverse. However, the longer-term structural factors supporting disinflation remain intact.\n\n\n*0.77*", "probability": 0.77, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Shump/matthew-yglesias-2024-predictions-l", "market_probability": 0.9137890422545772, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nMatthew Yglesias 2024 predictions: Last CPI print of the year shows annual inflation below 3%\n \n**Description:**\nhttps://www.slowboring.com/p/my-2024-predictions\n\nThis is a prediction from Matthew Yglesias's 2024 predictions. I will be resolving early when possible but in cases of ambiguity, the ultimate source of truth is Matt's evaluation.\n\nMatt predicts 80% for this question\n\nMatt's calibration for reference:\n\n[image]\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Stop Punting (2024-01-04): Made a time sensitive version of the question, so we can compare Manifold vs. Yglesias:\n- tjd (2024-09-02): is this YoY or MoM? [article is paywalled :( ]\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- The annual inflation rate for the United States was 2.6% for the 12 months ending October, compared to the previous rate increase of 2.4%, according to U.S. Labor Department data published on November 13, 2024. The next inflation update is scheduled for release on December 11 at 8:30 a.m. ET, providing information on the inflation (Date published: Nov 13, 2024)\n- November 2024 CPI data are scheduled to be released on December 11, 2024, at 8:30 A.M. Eastern Time. ... From September 2023 to September 2024, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 2.4 percent, the smallest over-the-year increase since the 12 months ended February 2021. Over the year ended September 2024, prices for ...\n- The year-over-year inflation rate was 7.0% at the end of 2021 and 6.5% at the end of 2022. At the end of 2023, it was 3.4%. The rate was 2.4% for September 2024. (Date published: Nov 4, 2024)\n- For the month, the index increased 0.1 percent on a not seasonally adjusted basis. Please note that the indexes for the past 10 to 12 months are subject to revision. _____ The Consumer Price Index for November 2024 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, December 11, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. (ET).\n- About the CPI Inflation Calculator The CPI inflation calculator uses the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) U.S. city average series for all items, not seasonally adjusted. This data. represents changes in the prices of all goods and services purchased for consumption by urban households.\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nMatthew Yglesias 2024 predictions: Last CPI print of the year shows annual inflation below 3%\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"December 2024 CPI inflation rate year-over-year\"", "search_results": "The annual inflation rate for the United States was 2.6% for the 12 months ending October, compared to the previous rate increase of 2.4%, according to U.S. Labor Department data published on November 13, 2024. The next inflation update is scheduled for release on December 11 at 8:30 a.m. ET, providing information on the inflation (Date published: Nov 13, 2024)\n\nNovember 2024 CPI data are scheduled to be released on December 11, 2024, at 8:30 A.M. Eastern Time. ... From September 2023 to September 2024, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 2.4 percent, the smallest over-the-year increase since the 12 months ended February 2021. Over the year ended September 2024, prices for ...\n\nThe year-over-year inflation rate was 7.0% at the end of 2021 and 6.5% at the end of 2022. At the end of 2023, it was 3.4%. The rate was 2.4% for September 2024. (Date published: Nov 4, 2024)\n\nFor the month, the index increased 0.1 percent on a not seasonally adjusted basis. Please note that the indexes for the past 10 to 12 months are subject to revision. _____ The Consumer Price Index for November 2024 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, December 11, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. (ET).\n\nAbout the CPI Inflation Calculator The CPI inflation calculator uses the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) U.S. city average series for all items, not seasonally adjusted. This data. represents changes in the prices of all goods and services purchased for consumption by urban households."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Current engaged user count is 1,018 (users who traded/commented/created questions on 2+ days in past 3 weeks)\n2. Manifold Markets is still active as of March 2024, with recent press coverage\n3. The question asks about 3,000 daily active users (7-day average) by end of 2024\n4. There's ~1 month remaining in 2024 from today's date\n5. Prediction markets generally have niche appeal compared to mainstream social media/gaming platforms\n6. User engagement metrics typically show high drop-off rates for most platforms\n7. No clear data showing Manifold's historical growth rate or user retention metrics\n\n\n\n1. Current user base is only ~1/3 of target, making 3x growth in 1 month extremely challenging (Strength: 9/10)\n2. Prediction markets are inherently niche and complex, limiting mass appeal (Strength: 7/10)\n3. End of year/holiday season typically shows lower engagement for many platforms (Strength: 5/10)\n4. No evidence of major marketing campaigns or viral growth drivers (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Platform is still active and receiving press coverage in 2024 (Strength: 4/10)\n2. Some platforms can experience sudden viral growth spurts (Strength: 3/10)\n3. Year-end events/predictions might drive heightened interest (Strength: 2/10)\n\n\n\nThe core challenge here is achieving 3x growth in just one month, starting from a relatively small base. While sudden viral growth is possible, it's extremely rare, especially for niche platforms like prediction markets.\n\nThe timing (December) actually works against growth, as many users reduce online engagement during holidays. The lack of evident growth drivers (major partnerships, viral features, or marketing campaigns) further reduces the likelihood.\n\nMost importantly, the current user base of ~1,000 engaged users suggests the platform hasn't achieved breakthrough growth earlier in 2024, making a sudden surge to 3,000 daily active users highly improbable.\n\n\n0.03\n\n\nLet's examine this from different angles:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: Very few platforms achieve 200%+ growth in a single month. Those that do typically have strong network effects and broad consumer appeal, unlike prediction markets.\n\n2. Historical context: Prediction markets like PredictIt, Metaculus, and others have generally shown steady but modest growth rates, rarely experiencing sudden surges.\n\n3. Time constraint: With only one month remaining, this is essentially a prediction about an extremely rapid growth event. Such events are much rarer than gradual growth.\n\n4. Nature of the product: Prediction markets require significant user education and engagement, making viral adoption less likely compared to simpler products.\n\nThe tentative probability of 0.03 (about 1:32 odds) seems reasonable given these factors. It's low enough to reflect the significant challenges, but not so low as to completely dismiss the possibility of an unexpected surge. A probability of 0.01 would be too low given the platform's demonstrated ability to maintain operations and attract press coverage, while anything above 0.05 would underestimate the difficulty of achieving such rapid growth in a niche market.\n\n\n*0.03*", "probability": 0.03, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/itsTomekK/will-manifold-hit-3000-active-users-f008f5605749", "market_probability": 0.033752622695513455, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Manifold hit 3,000 active users daily (7d average) in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nThis market asks whether the 7d Daily average of Manifold active users - displayed at https://manifold.markets/stats will hit 3,000 in 2024.\n\n\n[image]\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Lopez Jennifer (2024-05-06): The dollarization of prices in emerging economy retail markets is the subject of this article. \\nSlope Game\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Growth in demand for oil and natural gas will be a key driver fueling the manifolds growth during the forecast period. Market Research Reports - Industry Analysis Size & Trends - Technavio ... Manifolds Market Size 2024-2028. The manifolds market size is estimated to grow by USD 596.5 million, ... 5 User Download 5 Reports/Month/User View 100 ...\n- The manifolds market is forecasted to grow by USD 596.5 million during 2023-2028, accelerating at a CAGR of 3.61% during the forecast period. The report on the manifolds market provides a holistic analysis, market size and forecast, trends, growth drivers, and challenges, as well as vendor analysis covering around 25 vendors.\n- Automotive Exhaust Manifold Market Report Attributes; Report Attribute Details; Base Year: 2024: Automotive Exhaust Manifold Market Size in 2024: USD 12.1 Billion: Forecast Period: 2025 \u2013 2034: Forecast Period 2025 \u2013 2034 CAGR: 5.6%: 2025 \u2013 2034 Value Projection: USD 20.9 Billion: Historical Data for: 2021 \u2013 2024: No. of Pages: 180 ...\n- But Manifold Markets, a rising star in prediction market betting wants to start the conversation on why people should bet on the future.San Francisco, California, March 18, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE ... (Date published: Mar 18, 2024)\n- An engaged user is a user who has traded in, commented on, or created a question on at least 2 out of 7 days in each of the past 3 weeks. 1018 engaged users Mana supply\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Manifold hit 3,000 active users daily (7d average) in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Manifold Markets user growth 2024\"", "search_results": "Growth in demand for oil and natural gas will be a key driver fueling the manifolds growth during the forecast period. Market Research Reports - Industry Analysis Size & Trends - Technavio ... Manifolds Market Size 2024-2028. The manifolds market size is estimated to grow by USD 596.5 million, ... 5 User Download 5 Reports/Month/User View 100 ...\n\nThe manifolds market is forecasted to grow by USD 596.5 million during 2023-2028, accelerating at a CAGR of 3.61% during the forecast period. The report on the manifolds market provides a holistic analysis, market size and forecast, trends, growth drivers, and challenges, as well as vendor analysis covering around 25 vendors.\n\nAutomotive Exhaust Manifold Market Report Attributes; Report Attribute Details; Base Year: 2024: Automotive Exhaust Manifold Market Size in 2024: USD 12.1 Billion: Forecast Period: 2025 \u2013 2034: Forecast Period 2025 \u2013 2034 CAGR: 5.6%: 2025 \u2013 2034 Value Projection: USD 20.9 Billion: Historical Data for: 2021 \u2013 2024: No. of Pages: 180 ...\n\nBut Manifold Markets, a rising star in prediction market betting wants to start the conversation on why people should bet on the future.San Francisco, California, March 18, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE ... (Date published: Mar 18, 2024)\n\nAn engaged user is a user who has traded in, commented on, or created a question on at least 2 out of 7 days in each of the past 3 weeks. 1018 engaged users Mana supply"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. IBM Watson competed successfully in Jeopardy's 30th season\n2. As of late 2024, LLMs have shown significant improvements in multilingual contexts and efficiency\n3. Small language models (SLMs) are emerging as potentially significant in 2024\n4. Current LLMs show continued advancement in chat and code generation\n5. Competition between closed and open-source models is intense with narrowing performance gaps\n6. Jeopardy requires:\n - Real-time audio processing\n - Understanding of wordplay and puns\n - Quick response times\n - Precise confidence scoring for wagering\n - Ability to \"buzz in\" at appropriate times\n7. Season 40 of Jeopardy would likely start around September 2023 and end around July 2024\n8. No public announcements have been made about LLM participation in Jeopardy\n\n\n\n1. Time constraint: With only one month left in 2024, and no public announcements, logistics and arrangements would be extremely challenging (Strength: 9)\n2. Technical hurdles: Current LLMs still struggle with real-time audio processing and precise timing for \"buzzing in\" (Strength: 7)\n3. Show format: Jeopardy requires physical presence and interaction with buzzers, which would need significant adaptation for an LLM (Strength: 6)\n4. Risk aversion: Show producers may be hesitant to risk their format with experimental technology (Strength: 5)\n\n\n\n1. Previous precedent: IBM Watson has already competed, setting a precedent (Strength: 8)\n2. Technological progress: LLMs have shown significant improvements in 2024 (Strength: 6)\n3. Media attention: An LLM appearance would generate substantial publicity (Strength: 4)\n4. Competition pressure: Intense AI development might push companies to showcase capabilities (Strength: 3)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is timing. Even if an LLM were technically capable, the logistics of arranging such an appearance with only one month remaining in 2024 would be extremely challenging. The show would need time for testing, adaptation of their format, and promotional activities.\n\nThe absence of any public announcements or preparations is particularly telling. Given the media attention such an event would generate, it's unlikely this could be kept completely secret until the last minute.\n\nWhile technological capability exists and might even surpass Watson in some areas, the physical integration challenges and time constraints dominate the probability space.\n\n\n0.05\n\n\nLet's examine this from alternative angles:\n1. Base rate: AI competitions in established game shows are rare events\n2. Historical precedent: Watson's appearance was heavily promoted and prepared well in advance\n3. Technical readiness: While LLMs have advanced significantly, the full stack of required capabilities (audio, timing, physical integration) isn't demonstrated\n4. Time window: The market closes December 31, 2024, leaving extremely limited time\n\nThe 5% initial estimate actually seems slightly high given these considerations. The combination of technical hurdles and especially the extremely short remaining timeframe makes this highly unlikely. A more calibrated probability should account for the near-impossibility of arranging such an event in the remaining time, even if technical capability exists.\n\n\n*0.02*", "probability": 0.02, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/ElmerFudd/will-an-llm-compete-in-jeopardys-40", "market_probability": 0.27648442478396174, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill an LLM compete in Jeopardy\u2019s 40th season?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- \u1e40710 (2023-10-03): IBM Watson did well in the 30th season\n- Kevin Blawd (2023-10-03): Someone with an advanced law degree is going to blow up the this market. \n- Sodra (2023-10-05): Is there anyone logging how an LLM would compete with Jeopardy right now?\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- A groundbreaking development is the native integration of LLMs into phones, starting in 2024. Advances in efficient model training, exemplified by models like BTLM and Phi, enable these smaller models to match or even surpass state-of-the-art models from the previous year. Qualcomm\u2019s demonstration of 10 billion parameter models running on ... (Date published: Dec 20, 2023)\n- The AI and LLM landscape in 2024/2025 is rapidly evolving, characterized by: Intense competition between closed and open-source models, with performance gaps narrowing. (Date published: Jul 28, 2024)\n- The latest version of the AI model has significantly improved dataset demand and speed, ensuring more efficient chat and code generation, even across multilingual contexts like German, Chinese, and Hindi. ... Powered by real-time Klu.ai data as of . 10/18/2024, this LLM Leaderboard reveals key insights into use cases, performance, and quality ...\n- The rapid advancements in AI and large language models (LLMs) have gained immense attention and excitement in recent years. While 2023 has witnessed significant breakthroughs in this field, the future of AI and LLMs holds even greater promise. Beyond the initial excitement, the year 2024 could mark a turning point, with the potential emergence of small language models (SLMs) as a game-changer. (Date published: Nov 28, 2023)\n- Join thousands of data leaders on the AI newsletter. Join over 80,000 subscribers and keep up to date with the latest developments in AI. From research to projects and ideas. If you are building an AI startup, an AI-related product, or a service, we invite you to consider becoming a sponsor. Published via Towards AI (Date published: Jan 14, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill an LLM compete in Jeopardy\u2019s 40th season?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"LLM Jeopardy AI performance 2024 latest developments\"", "search_results": "A groundbreaking development is the native integration of LLMs into phones, starting in 2024. Advances in efficient model training, exemplified by models like BTLM and Phi, enable these smaller models to match or even surpass state-of-the-art models from the previous year. Qualcomm\u2019s demonstration of 10 billion parameter models running on ... (Date published: Dec 20, 2023)\n\nThe AI and LLM landscape in 2024/2025 is rapidly evolving, characterized by: Intense competition between closed and open-source models, with performance gaps narrowing. (Date published: Jul 28, 2024)\n\nThe latest version of the AI model has significantly improved dataset demand and speed, ensuring more efficient chat and code generation, even across multilingual contexts like German, Chinese, and Hindi. ... Powered by real-time Klu.ai data as of . 10/18/2024, this LLM Leaderboard reveals key insights into use cases, performance, and quality ...\n\nThe rapid advancements in AI and large language models (LLMs) have gained immense attention and excitement in recent years. While 2023 has witnessed significant breakthroughs in this field, the future of AI and LLMs holds even greater promise. Beyond the initial excitement, the year 2024 could mark a turning point, with the potential emergence of small language models (SLMs) as a game-changer. (Date published: Nov 28, 2023)\n\nJoin thousands of data leaders on the AI newsletter. Join over 80,000 subscribers and keep up to date with the latest developments in AI. From research to projects and ideas. If you are building an AI startup, an AI-related product, or a service, we invite you to consider becoming a sponsor. Published via Towards AI (Date published: Jan 14, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. As of March 2023, US intelligence community assessed it \"very unlikely\" that a foreign adversary/energy weapon caused Havana Syndrome\n2. DNI's 2024 Annual Threat Assessment (published ~Apr 2024) maintained this position\n3. Some intelligence agencies had only \"low\" or \"moderate\" confidence in the assessment as of July 2024\n4. Symptoms were attributed to factors like preexisting conditions and conventional illnesses\n5. The question resolves by Dec 31, 2024\n6. Historical context: Havana Syndrome first reported by US diplomats in Cuba in 2016\n7. Cases involved unexplained neurological symptoms including headaches, dizziness, and cognitive issues\n8. The assessment has significant diplomatic implications, especially regarding relations with potential adversaries\n\n\n\n1. Multiple recent assessments (2023, early/mid 2024) consistently maintain the \"very unlikely\" position (Strength: 9/10)\n2. Changing such a major intelligence assessment would require substantial new evidence, which hasn't emerged (Strength: 8/10)\n3. Alternative explanations (medical conditions, conventional illness) provide a simpler explanation fitting Occam's razor (Strength: 7/10)\n4. Only 5 months remain in 2024, limiting time for new evidence or position changes (Strength: 6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Some intelligence agencies have low/moderate confidence in the assessment, suggesting potential for revision (Strength: 6/10)\n2. National security considerations might lead to delayed public attribution even if evidence exists (Strength: 4/10)\n3. New investigative techniques or declassified information could emerge (Strength: 3/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here is institutional inertia vs potential new evidence. The DNI has made multiple public statements dismissing foreign involvement, creating significant institutional commitment to this position. Changing it would require extraordinary evidence.\n\nThe varying confidence levels among agencies is notable but not decisive - such disagreements are common in intelligence matters and don't typically lead to rapid assessment changes.\n\nThe time constraint is significant - with only one month remaining, the window for change is very narrow. Any major revision would need to overcome both bureaucratic inertia and the reputational cost of reversing a high-profile assessment.\n\nThe alternative explanations (medical conditions, etc.) have parsimony on their side, making them more likely to remain the preferred explanation absent compelling contrary evidence.\n\n\n0.08\n\n\nReviewing my initial assessment:\n\nBase rates are informative here - major intelligence community positions rarely reverse within such short timeframes without dramatic new evidence. The last significant reversal of comparable magnitude might be WMD assessments, which took years despite mounting contrary evidence.\n\nThe varying confidence levels among agencies actually strengthens the forecast - it suggests the issue was thoroughly debated before the current position was taken, rather than being a hasty assessment that might be more prone to revision.\n\nA key consideration is that this isn't just about private beliefs but public statements - changing position would have significant diplomatic and political implications, raising the bar for revision.\n\nThe time window is extremely short (one month), and the most recent statements (July 2024) show no indication of wavering from the established position.\n\nIf anything, my initial probability might be slightly high given these factors, particularly the extremely short timeframe remaining.\n\n\n*0.06*", "probability": 0.06, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/SemioticRivalry/will-the-director-of-national-intel-43279b2c09f6", "market_probability": 0.12168357021032836, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill the Director of National Intelligence believe Havana Syndrome is caused by a foreign adversary in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nAs of writing, the DNI assesses that it is 'very unlikely' that Havana Syndrome is caused by a foreign power.\n\nIf the DNI revises this assessment in favor of Havana Syndrome, this question resolves yes.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Susanne inFrance (2024-04-05): Or\u2014 will DNI not wish to admit it? \n- ClubmasterTransparent (2024-04-06): I appreciate the resolution criteria are specific here. If a foreign power IS behind it, the US can\u2019t very well make that public unless they are prepared to do something public about it.\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- technical analysis. In light of this and the evidence that points away from a foreign adversary, causal mechanism, or unique syndrome linked to AHIs, IC agencies assess that symptoms reported by US personnel were probably the result of factors that did not involve a foreign adversary, such as preexisting conditions, conventional illnesses, and\n- The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), in its 2024 Annual Threat Assessment, reinforced this stance, dismissing the idea of foreign adversarial involvement. \u201cWe continue to closely examine anomalous health incidents (AHIs), particularly in areas we have identified as requiring additional research and analysis,\u201d the DNI ... (Date published: Apr 1, 2024)\n- A review of \"Havana syndrome\" by the U.S. intelligence community finds it \"very unlikely\" that a foreign adversary or energy weapon is the cause, officials said Wednesday. (Date published: Mar 1, 2023)\n- In 2023, the Director of National Intelligence said that it's \"very unlikely a foreign adversary is responsible,\" but some intelligence agencies had only \"low\" or \"moderate\" confidence in that ... (Date published: Jul 7, 2024)\n- In February, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in its 2024 threat assessment found that it was \"unlikely\" that a foreign adversary was responsible for causing the mysterious ... (Date published: Apr 1, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill the Director of National Intelligence believe Havana Syndrome is caused by a foreign adversary in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Havana Syndrome intelligence assessment DNI 2024 foreign adversary\"", "search_results": "technical analysis. In light of this and the evidence that points away from a foreign adversary, causal mechanism, or unique syndrome linked to AHIs, IC agencies assess that symptoms reported by US personnel were probably the result of factors that did not involve a foreign adversary, such as preexisting conditions, conventional illnesses, and\n\nThe Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), in its 2024 Annual Threat Assessment, reinforced this stance, dismissing the idea of foreign adversarial involvement. \u201cWe continue to closely examine anomalous health incidents (AHIs), particularly in areas we have identified as requiring additional research and analysis,\u201d the DNI ... (Date published: Apr 1, 2024)\n\nA review of \"Havana syndrome\" by the U.S. intelligence community finds it \"very unlikely\" that a foreign adversary or energy weapon is the cause, officials said Wednesday. (Date published: Mar 1, 2023)\n\nIn 2023, the Director of National Intelligence said that it's \"very unlikely a foreign adversary is responsible,\" but some intelligence agencies had only \"low\" or \"moderate\" confidence in that ... (Date published: Jul 7, 2024)\n\nIn February, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in its 2024 threat assessment found that it was \"unlikely\" that a foreign adversary was responsible for causing the mysterious ... (Date published: Apr 1, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "\n1. All current Manifold API URLs use /v0 prefix\n2. There are some internal API endpoints not preceded by /v0 that are undocumented\n3. As of Dec 18, 2023, these internal endpoints were noted as temporary \"until a more permanent solution is implemented\"\n4. Some parts of Manifold's API appear to be moving toward data dumps rather than direct API access\n5. Only 30 days remain in 2024 for this change to occur\n6. Manifold maintains public documentation at docs.manifold.markets\n7. The search results indicate some API repositories are \"no longer being maintained\"\n\n\n\n1. Short timeframe remaining in 2024 (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Trend toward data dumps suggests less focus on API development (Strength: 6/10)\n3. Some API repositories being unmaintained indicates possible reduced priority for API development (Strength: 5/10)\n4. No public announcements or indications of v1 API development in sources (Strength: 4/10)\n\n\n\n1. Existence of internal non-/v0 endpoints suggests API architecture changes are being considered (Strength: 5/10)\n2. December 2023 documentation mentioning \"until a more permanent solution\" hints at planned changes (Strength: 4/10)\n3. The current /v0 prefix implies a future v1 is planned (Strength: 3/10)\n\n\n\nThe strongest factor here is the extremely limited time remaining in 2024 - only 30 days. For this to resolve positively, Manifold would need to:\n1. Have already been working on v1\n2. Complete development\n3. Test the new version\n4. Deploy it\n\nWhile there are some hints that API changes might be planned, the timing makes this particularly unlikely. The move toward data dumps suggests API development might not be a current priority.\n\nThe reference to internal endpoints and a \"more permanent solution\" from December 2023 hasn't materialized into a v1 API nearly a year later, which further suggests this isn't an active priority.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nLooking at this from a base rate perspective:\n- Software version increments typically follow significant changes and testing periods\n- Major API version changes often take months of planning and implementation\n- The holiday season in December typically sees reduced deployment of major changes\n\nThe 15% initial estimate feels roughly appropriate given:\n1. The extremely short timeframe remaining\n2. Lack of public signals about v1 development\n3. Historical evidence that this hasn't been a priority (given the year-old mention of future changes with no visible progress)\n4. The holiday season timing making major deployments less likely\n\nHowever, there could be internal development we're not aware of that's nearly ready for release, which is why maintaining some probability above 10% seems prudent.\n\n\n*0.15*", "probability": 0.15, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Mira_/will-manifold-release-a-v1-api-in-2", "market_probability": 0.14745654882326487, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Manifold release a /v1 API in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nCurrently all the URLs look like /v0:\n\ncurl \"https://api.manifold.markets/v0/markets?limit=1\" -X GET\n\nWill Manifold publish a new API on /v1 in 2024?\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Internal API Manifold has some internal API endpoints that are not part of the official API. These are largely undocumented, but a few are mentioned here for third-party use until a more permanent solution is implimented. These endpoints are not preceeded by /v0 and are even more subject to sudden changes than the official API endpoints. (Date published: Dec 18, 2023)\n- Currently all the URLs look like /v0: curl \"https://api.manifold.markets/v0/markets?limit=1\" -X GET. Will Manifold publish a new API on /v1 in 2024?\n- If you want to look at how the market math works, most of that's in here (it gets called from the bet and sellBet endpoints in functions/.) Also contains in common/envs configuration for the different environments (i.e. prod, dev, Manifold for Teams instances.) docs/: Manifold's public documentation that lives at https://docs.manifold.markets.\n- This repo, in particular the API, is no longer being maintained. Manifold now releases full data dumps, which are much easier to work with than the API. I am still happy to review PRs. Tools for analyzing Manifold Markets data. Currently has bindings for their API, and code for computing various accuracy metrics (Brier score, log score ...\n- Manifold is a social prediction market platform where you can trade on anything. ... Docs. Manifold Docs. Manifold is a social prediction market platform where you can trade on anything. This site hosts Manifold's: API documentation; FAQ; Sweepstakes FAQ; Edit this page. Manifold. Manifold; Docs; Community. Discord; Twitter; More. Blog; GitHub ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Manifold release a /v1 API in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Manifold Markets API v1 development plan 2024\"", "search_results": "Internal API Manifold has some internal API endpoints that are not part of the official API. These are largely undocumented, but a few are mentioned here for third-party use until a more permanent solution is implimented. These endpoints are not preceeded by /v0 and are even more subject to sudden changes than the official API endpoints. (Date published: Dec 18, 2023)\n\nCurrently all the URLs look like /v0: curl \"https://api.manifold.markets/v0/markets?limit=1\" -X GET. Will Manifold publish a new API on /v1 in 2024?\n\nIf you want to look at how the market math works, most of that's in here (it gets called from the bet and sellBet endpoints in functions/.) Also contains in common/envs configuration for the different environments (i.e. prod, dev, Manifold for Teams instances.) docs/: Manifold's public documentation that lives at https://docs.manifold.markets.\n\nThis repo, in particular the API, is no longer being maintained. Manifold now releases full data dumps, which are much easier to work with than the API. I am still happy to review PRs. Tools for analyzing Manifold Markets data. Currently has bindings for their API, and code for computing various accuracy metrics (Brier score, log score ...\n\nManifold is a social prediction market platform where you can trade on anything. ... Docs. Manifold Docs. Manifold is a social prediction market platform where you can trade on anything. This site hosts Manifold's: API documentation; FAQ; Sweepstakes FAQ; Edit this page. Manifold. Manifold; Docs; Community. Discord; Twitter; More. Blog; GitHub ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me forecast this step by step.\n\n\n1. Verstappen has a contract with Red Bull through 2028, signed in March 2022\n2. Mercedes will have a vacant seat in 2025 due to Hamilton's departure\n3. Toto Wolff (Mercedes team principal) has actively pursued Verstappen, stating he'd \"love\" to have him\n4. Red Bull has recently announced a major multi-year signing for 2025\n5. Verstappen has been very successful with Red Bull, winning multiple championships\n6. F1 contracts, while binding, have historically been broken when teams/drivers strongly desire change\n7. Red Bull has faced some internal tensions in 2024 according to sources\n8. Mercedes is a top-tier F1 team with strong resources and history of success\n\n\n\n1. Long-term contract through 2028 creates significant legal and financial barriers (8/10)\n2. Verstappen's success with Red Bull and their continued competitiveness makes leaving risky (7/10)\n3. Breaking contracts mid-term can damage a driver's reputation and relationships in F1 (5/10)\n4. Red Bull has built their team around Verstappen and gives him preferential treatment (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Mercedes' aggressive pursuit and Hamilton's vacant seat creates a rare opportunity (5/10)\n2. Internal tensions at Red Bull could motivate a change (4/10)\n3. Mercedes has the resources and prestige to potentially buy out his contract (3/10)\n4. Historical precedent exists for major drivers switching teams despite contracts (2/10)\n\n\n\nThe key dynamic here is the strength of Verstappen's contract versus the pull factors from Mercedes. While F1 contracts can be broken, the length and recency of Verstappen's commitment to Red Bull makes this particularly unlikely. The financial and legal implications would be enormous.\n\nThe context of Red Bull's continued success and their car's dominance significantly reduces the appeal of switching teams. There's little sporting reason for Verstappen to leave, as Red Bull has consistently provided him with championship-winning machinery.\n\nThe timing is also important - with the question resolving by early 2025, any switch would need to be negotiated and announced very soon, making it even more improbable given the complex legal and financial arrangements that would need to be made.\n\n\n0.12\n\n\nLooking at historical base rates, mid-contract moves for championship-winning drivers are extremely rare, especially when they're with the dominant team. The few examples (like Schumacher to Ferrari) typically involved contracts nearing their end or teams in decline, neither of which applies here.\n\nThe sources suggesting Mercedes' interest could be exaggerated for media attention - F1 journalism often amplifies minor discussions into major stories. Wolff's public statements about wanting Verstappen could be more about creating pressure or media narrative than reflecting genuine possibility.\n\nGiven Verstappen's strong position at Red Bull, the length and recency of his contract, and Red Bull's continued success, even my initial 12% might be too high. The legal and financial barriers alone make this highly improbable, and there's little incentive for Verstappen to push for such a move.\n\nI'm adjusting downward after this reflection, as I believe I initially overweighted the dramatic potential of such a move and media speculation about Mercedes' interest.\n\n\n*0.07*", "probability": 0.07, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/KevinBurke/will-max-verstappen-drive-for-a-dif", "market_probability": 0.07964155633244939, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Max Verstappen drive for a different team in 2025?\n \n**Description:**\nie, signs a contract with another Formula 1 team to become one of their two primary drivers.\n\nWill resolve YES if a contract is announced or NO at testing or the first race of 2025.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Red Bull have announced that they have made a major new signing on a multi-year deal ahead of the 2025 season. ... Red Bull announce 2025 signing on MULTI-YEAR contract. Kevin McKenna Thursday 21 November 2024 08:27 Updated ... Max Verstappen and Sergio Perez have struggled at times in 2024 Max Verstappen's impressive victory in Brazil was his ... (Date published: Nov 21, 2024)\n- Verstappen has a contract with Red Bull through 2028, but Lewis Hamilton\u2019s vacant seat at Mercedes come 2025 has spawned speculation about the German team attempting to lure Verstappen away. Mercedes boss Toto Wolff said earlier this year that he\u2019d \u201clove\u201d to have Verstappen as a driver.\n- World champion Max Verstappen has signed a bumper five-year contract extension with Red Bull, in a deal that will keep him at the team until at least the end of 2028. The 24-year-old, who joined the team in 2016, beat Lewis Hamilton on the final lap of the 2021 season-ending Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to clinch his maiden world championship. (Date published: Mar 3, 2022)\n- Verstappen has a contract with Red Bull through 2028, but Lewis Hamilton\u2019s vacant seat at Mercedes come 2025 has spawned speculation about the German team attempting to lure Verstappen away. (Date published: Jun 27, 2024)\n- Toto Wolff spent plenty of time earlier this season wooing Max Verstappen to convince him to quit Red Bull and move to Mercedes to replace Lewis Hamilton for 2025\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Max Verstappen drive for a different team in 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Max Verstappen Red Bull contract 2025 negotiations", "search_results": "Red Bull have announced that they have made a major new signing on a multi-year deal ahead of the 2025 season. ... Red Bull announce 2025 signing on MULTI-YEAR contract. Kevin McKenna Thursday 21 November 2024 08:27 Updated ... Max Verstappen and Sergio Perez have struggled at times in 2024 Max Verstappen's impressive victory in Brazil was his ... (Date published: Nov 21, 2024)\n\nVerstappen has a contract with Red Bull through 2028, but Lewis Hamilton\u2019s vacant seat at Mercedes come 2025 has spawned speculation about the German team attempting to lure Verstappen away. Mercedes boss Toto Wolff said earlier this year that he\u2019d \u201clove\u201d to have Verstappen as a driver.\n\nWorld champion Max Verstappen has signed a bumper five-year contract extension with Red Bull, in a deal that will keep him at the team until at least the end of 2028. The 24-year-old, who joined the team in 2016, beat Lewis Hamilton on the final lap of the 2021 season-ending Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to clinch his maiden world championship. (Date published: Mar 3, 2022)\n\nVerstappen has a contract with Red Bull through 2028, but Lewis Hamilton\u2019s vacant seat at Mercedes come 2025 has spawned speculation about the German team attempting to lure Verstappen away. (Date published: Jun 27, 2024)\n\nToto Wolff spent plenty of time earlier this season wooing Max Verstappen to convince him to quit Red Bull and move to Mercedes to replace Lewis Hamilton for 2025"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. As of June 2024, Tesla had deployed two Optimus robots in a factory\n2. Tesla is continuing to develop and improve the Optimus program\n3. Recent developments show progress on hand dexterity and ball-catching capabilities\n4. Elon Musk announced Tesla will begin selling Optimus robots in 2026\n5. Tesla has demonstrated significant advancements in Optimus technology through 2024\n6. There appears to be a typo in the question (\"perfuming\" vs \"performing\")\n7. The question needs to be resolved by December 31, 2024\n8. The search results indicate steady but incremental progress in Optimus capabilities\n\n\n\n1. Time constraint - only one month remains until resolution (9/10)\n2. Scaling from 2 to 10 robots in production in such a short timeframe is challenging (8/10)\n3. Getting robots to perform truly autonomous tasks reliably is technically difficult (7/10)\n4. Tesla has a history of overpromising on automation capabilities (6/10)\n\n\n\n1. Tesla already has 2 robots deployed as of June 2024 (8/10)\n2. Significant progress has been shown throughout 2024 (6/10)\n3. Tesla has strong incentives to demonstrate Optimus capabilities before the 2026 commercial launch (5/10)\n4. The bar is relatively low - they only need 10 robots performing any autonomous tasks (4/10)\n\n\n\nThe key question hinges on scaling from 2 robots in June to 10 by year-end. Given Tesla's demonstrated commitment and progress, this seems technically feasible. However, the extremely short remaining timeframe (one month) creates significant execution risk.\n\nThe case structure breaks down into:\n1. Current deployment (as of December 1) is already \u226510 robots\n2. Current deployment is <10 but Tesla can deploy additional robots within December\n3. Current deployment is <10 and Tesla cannot scale up in time\n\nGiven the June report of 2 robots and no subsequent updates indicating major scaling, case 1 seems unlikely. Case 2 faces significant timing challenges given the holiday season and end-of-year activities. Case 3 appears most probable.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nMy initial forecast may be slightly optimistic. Consider:\n\n1. Base rate: Achieving reliable autonomous robot deployment in manufacturing is historically very difficult and time-consuming\n2. The search results show incremental progress but no evidence of rapid scaling\n3. End-of-year timing adds additional complexity to any deployment plans\n4. The question requires sustained autonomous operation, not just demonstration capability\n\nManufacturing deployment typically requires extensive testing and validation periods. Even if Tesla has more robots ready, getting them to perform reliable autonomous tasks by year-end would be challenging.\n\nThe fact that we don't see any announcements of significant scaling between June and December is particularly telling, as Tesla typically promotes major achievements.\n\n\n*0.08*", "probability": 0.08, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/MolbyDick/will-there-be-at-least-10-tesla-opt", "market_probability": 0.16982399229689318, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill there be at least 10 Tesla Optimus perfuming tasks autonomously at a Tesla factory by the end of 2024?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Christopher Randles (2024-07-23): Arb opportunity at \\nhttps://manifold.markets/TP8ac2/will-tesla-begin-using-optimus-tesl\n- Christopher Randles (2024-07-24): Does only spraying scents count? re perfuming \ud83e\udd23 \n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- \u201cLet\u2019s give Optimus a hand for catching ball!\u201d Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote on X commenting on the latest video of the robot catching balls. Tesla only upgraded the left hand of Optimus which is catching tennis balls being thrown his way. The left hand is the latest generation of the Optimus hand for the Gen 2 Optimus robot.\n- The Lathrop Megapack factory has reached a 40 GWh annual run rate, while the Shanghai factory will add 20 GWh in early 2025. ... Tesla\u2019s FSD technology has seen remarkable progress in 2024. Version 12.5 delivered a 100x improvement in miles-per-critical-intervention, ... Optimus Robot. Tesla showcased significant advancements in its Optimus ...\n- Tesla says that it is already using some Optimus robots in its factory as it continues to develop the program, but it is expected to ramp up next year. Useful hands and dexterity are some of the hardest parts of humanoid robots, and it looks like Tesla is making significant progress on that front.\n- The company said in an X post that two of the humanoid robots had been deployed in a factory. Elon Musk has called Optimus Tesla's most valuable product, but it's still got a long way to go ... (Date published: Jun 12, 2024)\n- Ahead of Tuesday\u2019s earnings, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that the carmaker will begin selling its Optimus humanoid robot in 2026. In fact, Optimus has already started performing tasks ... (Date published: Jul 23, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill there be at least 10 Tesla Optimus perfuming tasks autonomously at a Tesla factory by the end of 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Tesla Optimus robot factory deployment progress 2024", "search_results": "\u201cLet\u2019s give Optimus a hand for catching ball!\u201d Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote on X commenting on the latest video of the robot catching balls. Tesla only upgraded the left hand of Optimus which is catching tennis balls being thrown his way. The left hand is the latest generation of the Optimus hand for the Gen 2 Optimus robot.\n\nThe Lathrop Megapack factory has reached a 40 GWh annual run rate, while the Shanghai factory will add 20 GWh in early 2025. ... Tesla\u2019s FSD technology has seen remarkable progress in 2024. Version 12.5 delivered a 100x improvement in miles-per-critical-intervention, ... Optimus Robot. Tesla showcased significant advancements in its Optimus ...\n\nTesla says that it is already using some Optimus robots in its factory as it continues to develop the program, but it is expected to ramp up next year. Useful hands and dexterity are some of the hardest parts of humanoid robots, and it looks like Tesla is making significant progress on that front.\n\nThe company said in an X post that two of the humanoid robots had been deployed in a factory. Elon Musk has called Optimus Tesla's most valuable product, but it's still got a long way to go ... (Date published: Jun 12, 2024)\n\nAhead of Tuesday\u2019s earnings, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that the carmaker will begin selling its Optimus humanoid robot in 2026. In fact, Optimus has already started performing tasks ... (Date published: Jul 23, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_YES", "reasoning": "I'll help forecast this question following the provided steps.\n\n\n1. Elon Musk previously suggested Starlink would IPO once cash flow becomes predictable (2021 statement)\n2. Recent rumors of a late 2024 IPO were explicitly denied by Musk\n3. Some industry experts project a 2025-2026 timeline for potential IPO\n4. SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell has previously indicated potential for IPO\n5. As of mid-2024, no concrete IPO plans were announced\n6. Starlink is still a private subsidiary of SpaceX\n7. The market closes December 31, 2024, giving about 13 months for an IPO to occur\n\n\n\n1. Musk explicitly denied recent IPO rumors (Strength: 8/10)\n2. No concrete preparations or regulatory filings visible yet, which typically take months (Strength: 7/10)\n3. Musk has shown reluctance to take companies public due to market pressures and reporting requirements (Strength: 6/10)\n4. Current market conditions and interest rates may not be optimal for IPO (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\n1. SpaceX/Starlink may need significant capital for expansion and development (Strength: 6/10)\n2. Industry experts and insiders suggesting 2025-2026 timeline indicates some credible preparation (Strength: 5/10)\n3. Starlink's business model becoming more mature and predictable, meeting Musk's stated condition (Strength: 4/10)\n\n\n\nThe key tension here is between operational readiness/capital needs and Musk's apparent current reluctance. The timeline is relatively short (13 months), and IPOs require significant preparation. Musk's recent explicit denial of IPO plans is particularly significant, as it suggests no immediate preparations are underway.\n\nThe fastest realistic timeline for an IPO, even if decided upon now, would likely be 6-9 months minimum due to regulatory requirements and preparation. This leaves little margin for the 2025 deadline.\n\nMarket conditions and Musk's known preferences for private company operation weigh against an IPO. While capital needs could drive the decision, there are alternative funding sources available.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nLet's consider base rates: The average time from company founding to IPO is several years, and Starlink is still relatively young. Most companies that hint at possible IPOs typically take longer than initially suggested to actually go public.\n\nThe short timeline combined with Musk's recent denial suggests my initial probability might actually be too high. The key factors are:\n1. Explicit denial of near-term IPO plans\n2. Short timeline to deadline\n3. No visible preparation steps\n4. Musk's historical preference for private operation\n5. Alternative funding sources available\n\nGiven these factors and considering the conjunctive nature of what needs to happen (decision to IPO + preparation + execution) within a tight timeframe, I should adjust downward.\n\n\n*0.08*", "probability": 0.08, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/Gigacasting/will-starlink-ipo-by-2025", "market_probability": 0.053339226679718535, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Starlink IPO by 2025?\n \n**Description:**\n\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- At the time of this writing, Starlink is not publicly traded, and there is no concrete date for a Starlink IPO. Hints of a possible Starlink IPO originally came from several tweets made by Musk in 2021. \"Once we can predict cash flow reasonably well, Starlink will IPO,\" he explained at the time. (Date published: Nov 5, 2024)\n- At the time of this writing, Starlink is not publicly traded, and there is no concrete date for a Starlink IPO. Hints of a possible Starlink IPO originally came from several tweets made by Musk in 2021. \"Once we can predict cash flow reasonably well, Starlink will IPO,\" he explained at the time. (Date published: Nov 5, 2024)\n- Starlink didn't have an IPO on the calendar as of mid-2024. While there has been some speculation that Musk might take Starlink public, he has downplayed that idea. (Date published: Dec 20, 2023)\n- The latest estimates, both by Elon Musk and industry experts, see Starlink go public sometime in 2025 or 2026. But how did they arrive at this prediction? The first indication of a potential Starlink IPO was first provided by SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell. (Date published: Feb 5, 2024)\n- SpaceX is considering clearing the initial public offering (IPO) for take-off as soon as late 2024, according to Bloomberg. Elon Musk responded on X (formerly Twitter), calling the report \u201c false.\u201d (Date published: Nov 15, 2023)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Starlink IPO by 2025?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "Starlink IPO timeline SpaceX Elon Musk 2024", "search_results": "At the time of this writing, Starlink is not publicly traded, and there is no concrete date for a Starlink IPO. Hints of a possible Starlink IPO originally came from several tweets made by Musk in 2021. \"Once we can predict cash flow reasonably well, Starlink will IPO,\" he explained at the time. (Date published: Nov 5, 2024)\n\nAt the time of this writing, Starlink is not publicly traded, and there is no concrete date for a Starlink IPO. Hints of a possible Starlink IPO originally came from several tweets made by Musk in 2021. \"Once we can predict cash flow reasonably well, Starlink will IPO,\" he explained at the time. (Date published: Nov 5, 2024)\n\nStarlink didn't have an IPO on the calendar as of mid-2024. While there has been some speculation that Musk might take Starlink public, he has downplayed that idea. (Date published: Dec 20, 2023)\n\nThe latest estimates, both by Elon Musk and industry experts, see Starlink go public sometime in 2025 or 2026. But how did they arrive at this prediction? The first indication of a potential Starlink IPO was first provided by SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell. (Date published: Feb 5, 2024)\n\nSpaceX is considering clearing the initial public offering (IPO) for take-off as soon as late 2024, according to Bloomberg. Elon Musk responded on X (formerly Twitter), calling the report \u201c false.\u201d (Date published: Nov 15, 2023)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. The question appears to be about Hytale, which is being developed by Hypixel Studios, not Notch\n2. The most recent developer update (July 2024) indicates the team is \"on track\" since their Winter 2023 update\n3. They completed bringing their new engine in-house about a year before July 2024\n4. As of January 2024, significant development work was still ongoing\n5. Some community speculation points to a beta release in mid-2025 and full release in mid-2026\n6. The market's rules state that any kind of public release counts, including alpha or beta\n7. The market closes December 31, 2024\n8. Notch (Markus Persson) is the original creator of Minecraft but is not involved with Hytale\n\n\n\n1. Strength 10: The question appears to be fundamentally mistaken - Notch is not developing this game\n2. Strength 8: Even for Hytale itself, community estimates suggest 2025 for beta release\n3. Strength 7: Large-scale game development typically faces delays and setbacks\n4. Strength 6: The recent updates suggest ongoing development without mention of imminent release\n\n\n\n1. Strength 2: The July 2024 update indicated the team was \"on track\", though this doesn't specify a timeline\n2. Strength 1: The market rules are very inclusive of what counts as a \"release\"\n\n\n\nThe key issue here is that the question appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding - Notch is not involved with Hytale. The question specifically asks about \"notch release his new game\" but Hytale is being developed by Hypixel Studios. This isn't just a minor detail - it completely changes the nature of what we're forecasting.\n\nEven if we were to interpret this as asking about Hytale's release (which would be a significant departure from the literal question), the evidence suggests a 2024 release is unlikely. The development updates and community analysis point to 2025 or later.\n\nThe question as written must be evaluated based on Notch releasing a game, not Hytale's release schedule.\n\n\n0.01\n\n\nLet's examine this from multiple angles:\n\n1. Is Notch known to be developing any game? I have no information suggesting he is.\n2. Even if he were secretly developing something, the probability of announcing and releasing it in the remaining month of 2024 is extremely low.\n3. The market seems to be about Hytale, but the question explicitly asks about Notch.\n\nThe base rate for any individual game developer releasing a game in a given year is quite low, and even lower for a specific month. For Notch specifically, who hasn't been actively developing games publicly for years, it's even lower.\n\nThe only reason I'm not putting this at exactly 0 is to account for:\n1. The possibility of a small, unannounced project being released\n2. The general principle of maintaining some uncertainty for any non-logically-impossible event\n\nBut given the specificity of the timeframe (only December 2024 remains) and lack of any evidence of Notch working on a game, this probability should be very low.\n\n\n*0.005*", "probability": 0.005, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/jim/will-notch-release-his-new-game-in", "market_probability": 0.08305075533547024, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nwill notch release his new game in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nany kind of public release counts, even if it's an alpha or beta release.\n\nthis market is about this game:\n\n[image]although it may have changed completely by the time of release - I will make my own judgement on whether it counts as the same game.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- To kick us off, here\u2019s Hytale\u2019s Executive Producer, John Hendricks. John: I am happy to report that the team has been on track since our Winter 2023 development update. It's been a year since we brought our shiny new engine in-house and started the process of integrating the bespoke systems and workflows we need to build Hytale. (Date published: Jul 29, 2024)\n- Embark on a journey of adventure and creativity! Hytale combines the scope of a sandbox with the depth of a roleplaying game, immersing players in a procedurally generated world where teetering towers and deep dungeons promise rich rewards. Designed with creative players in mind, Hytale\u2019s engine supports everything from block-by-block castle construction to scripting and customization ...\n- so 2024 would fit that definition the quote also says \"before Hytale is ready to launch\" the beta (open or closed) would be considered part of the pre-launch preparation. ... So basically after deciding to rework most of hytale they had to do 80% of the game. Yes, they certainly made good progress, but they still had at best 40% left to do.\n- Hytale, the ambitious project by Hypixel Studios, has been a topic of keen interest in the gaming community. With its promise of a rich, blocky world full of adventure, creativity, and social play, Hytale aims to offer a unique experience. This update provides insight into the current status of the game\u2019s development as we progress into 2024. (Date published: Jan 9, 2024)\n- Well, one thing we can be sure of. If in the new blog post there will be nothing mentioned about 2024 or the release date at all, the chances of a 2024 release (even a beta) will drop to zero. In my opinion, the beta hytale will come out in mid 2025 and the full release in mid 2026(because we must remember that updating the engine to a lot of ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nwill notch release his new game in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "notch hytale game status 2024", "search_results": "To kick us off, here\u2019s Hytale\u2019s Executive Producer, John Hendricks. John: I am happy to report that the team has been on track since our Winter 2023 development update. It's been a year since we brought our shiny new engine in-house and started the process of integrating the bespoke systems and workflows we need to build Hytale. (Date published: Jul 29, 2024)\n\nEmbark on a journey of adventure and creativity! Hytale combines the scope of a sandbox with the depth of a roleplaying game, immersing players in a procedurally generated world where teetering towers and deep dungeons promise rich rewards. Designed with creative players in mind, Hytale\u2019s engine supports everything from block-by-block castle construction to scripting and customization ...\n\nso 2024 would fit that definition the quote also says \"before Hytale is ready to launch\" the beta (open or closed) would be considered part of the pre-launch preparation. ... So basically after deciding to rework most of hytale they had to do 80% of the game. Yes, they certainly made good progress, but they still had at best 40% left to do.\n\nHytale, the ambitious project by Hypixel Studios, has been a topic of keen interest in the gaming community. With its promise of a rich, blocky world full of adventure, creativity, and social play, Hytale aims to offer a unique experience. This update provides insight into the current status of the game\u2019s development as we progress into 2024. (Date published: Jan 9, 2024)\n\nWell, one thing we can be sure of. If in the new blog post there will be nothing mentioned about 2024 or the release date at all, the chances of a 2024 release (even a beta) will drop to zero. In my opinion, the beta hytale will come out in mid 2025 and the full release in mid 2026(because we must remember that updating the engine to a lot of ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Kramnik has accused Nakamura of cheating, specifically questioning his 45.5/46 win streak in online blitz\n2. The dispute between Kramnik and Nakamura was active as of February 2024\n3. Kramnik started a Change.org petition demanding Chess.com investigate Nakamura\n4. There's precedent for chess masters settling disputes through matches - Carlsen and Niemann played in September 2024\n5. The market requires participants to be 2600+ ELO rated or former candidates\n6. Both Kramnik (former World Champion) and Nakamura (5-time US Champion) meet the rating criteria\n7. The resolution allows for any chess format, including chess960\n8. Only one month remains in 2024 for such a match to occur\n9. Historical context shows chess disputes often persist without direct resolution\n\n\n\n1. Time constraint - with only one month left in 2024, organizing a high-profile match is logistically challenging (8/10)\n2. Kramnik seems more focused on demanding investigations than seeking a direct match (7/10)\n3. Many chess disputes historically fizzle out without formal resolution (6/10)\n4. Professional chess players often avoid direct confrontations that could damage their reputation (5/10)\n\n\n\n1. The Carlsen-Niemann precedent shows such matches can happen (6/10)\n2. The flexible format (any type of chess) makes arrangement easier (4/10)\n3. Both players are active and capable of participating (5/10)\n4. There's clear tension between specific players (Kramnik-Nakamura) that could lead to a match (5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key mechanism here is whether the existing tension will translate into action within a very short timeframe. The Carlsen-Niemann precedent is relevant but occurred with more lead time and planning.\n\nThe extremely short remaining time (one month) is the dominant factor. Even if both parties wanted to arrange a match, the logistics of scheduling, broadcasting, and organizing such an event during the holiday season would be challenging.\n\nThe nature of Kramnik's accusations (demanding investigations) suggests he's pursuing an institutional rather than personal resolution path, making a direct match less likely.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing this forecast:\n\n1. Base rate considerations: Chess disputes rarely result in direct matches, even without time constraints\n2. Time pressure: One month is extremely short for organizing professional chess events\n3. The Carlsen-Niemann match took significant time to arrange and had more institutional backing\n4. The market resolution requires specific criteria (2600+ ELO or former candidates) which limits the pool of possible participants\n\nThe tentative probability of 0.15 seems reasonable but might be slightly high given the extreme time constraint. While there's clear tension between specific players that could theoretically lead to a match, the combination of practical constraints and the typical patterns of chess disputes suggest an even lower probability is warranted.\n\nA key insight is that most chess cheating disputes tend to play out through social media, formal investigations, and institutional channels rather than direct matches.\n\n\n*0.12*", "probability": 0.12, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/MP/will-two-chess-masters-settle-their", "market_probability": 0.7977753024918849, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill two chess masters settle their cheating disputes through a match in 2024?\n \n**Description:**\nThe chess world has been plagued currently with accusations of people saying other GMs cheat. Particularly, GM Kramnik is saying that GM Nakamura performance is interesting.\n\nIf two masters (2600+ elo rating, former candidate, even if not active currently) settle their cheating disputes through a match of chess in 2024, this market resolves to YES. The rhythm of the chess doesn't matter. Could also be chess 960.\n\nI may bet on this market.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- Weezing (2024-04-03): I asume this (\\nhttps://www.zleague.gg/theportal/gothamchess-the-clash-of-claims-a-high-stakes-chess-event/\\n) counts as 2 chess masters settling their cheating disputes?\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- Undeterred, Mr Kramnik started a petition on Change.org demanding that Chess.com perform a \u201cdetailed investigation\u201d into Mr Nakamura\u2019s \u201cabnormal results\u201d. He later claimed on his Chess ... (Date published: Dec 4, 2023)\n- Kramnik placed second in the September 24 edition of Titled Tuesday, a weekly Chess.com event, and accused two of his opponents in the tournament of cheating on social media. (Date published: Sep 25, 2024)\n- The controversy between Kramnik and Nakamura may have started with a misunderstanding, it opens the door to a necessary conversation about cheating in chess. By moving past personal grievances and focusing on systemic issues, the chess community can emerge stronger and more united in its pursuit of integrity and fair play. (Date published: Feb 22, 2024)\n- In September, Carlsen and Niemann sat down in their first match since 2022, meeting in the semi-final of the 2024 Speed Chess Championship in Paris. Carlsen defeated his opponent by 17.5 to 12.5.\n- We provide a statistical analysis of the recent controversy between Vladimir Kramnik (ex chess world champion) and Hikaru Nakamura. Hikaru Nakamura is a chess prodigy and a five-time United States chess champion. Kramnik called into question Nakamura's 45.5 out of 46 win streak in an online blitz contest at chess.com. We assess the weight of evidence using a priori assessment of Viswanathan ... (Date published: Sep 9, 2024)\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill two chess masters settle their cheating disputes through a match in 2024?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Nakamura Kramnik chess cheating dispute 2024 match\"", "search_results": "Undeterred, Mr Kramnik started a petition on Change.org demanding that Chess.com perform a \u201cdetailed investigation\u201d into Mr Nakamura\u2019s \u201cabnormal results\u201d. He later claimed on his Chess ... (Date published: Dec 4, 2023)\n\nKramnik placed second in the September 24 edition of Titled Tuesday, a weekly Chess.com event, and accused two of his opponents in the tournament of cheating on social media. (Date published: Sep 25, 2024)\n\nThe controversy between Kramnik and Nakamura may have started with a misunderstanding, it opens the door to a necessary conversation about cheating in chess. By moving past personal grievances and focusing on systemic issues, the chess community can emerge stronger and more united in its pursuit of integrity and fair play. (Date published: Feb 22, 2024)\n\nIn September, Carlsen and Niemann sat down in their first match since 2022, meeting in the semi-final of the 2024 Speed Chess Championship in Paris. Carlsen defeated his opponent by 17.5 to 12.5.\n\nWe provide a statistical analysis of the recent controversy between Vladimir Kramnik (ex chess world champion) and Hikaru Nakamura. Hikaru Nakamura is a chess prodigy and a five-time United States chess champion. Kramnik called into question Nakamura's 45.5 out of 46 win streak in an online blitz contest at chess.com. We assess the weight of evidence using a priori assessment of Viswanathan ... (Date published: Sep 9, 2024)"}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "\n1. Iran has accelerated its nuclear program through 2023 and 2024\n2. As of late 2024, there was heightened international scrutiny following direct military exchanges between Iran and Israel\n3. Iran halted its nuclear weapons program before 2003, according to available information\n4. Recent US officials (Sullivan, Blinken) noted Iran has made progress on key aspects of weapons development\n5. Iran has never possessed nuclear weapons historically\n6. No country has used nuclear weapons in combat since 1945\n7. Iran faces significant international pressure and sanctions regarding its nuclear program\n8. Iran has conventional military capabilities and proxy forces across the Middle East\n9. Development of nuclear weapons requires both technical capability and political will\n10. Using nuclear weapons would likely result in devastating retaliation\n\n\n\n1. Severe international consequences - using nuclear weapons would likely trigger overwhelming military response and complete isolation (9/10)\n2. Iran's strategic goals can be achieved through conventional means and proxy warfare (7/10)\n3. Even if Iran develops nuclear weapons, they're more valuable as deterrent than for actual use (8/10)\n4. Religious and ethical considerations within Iranian leadership regarding mass civilian casualties (5/10)\n5. Historical precedent - no country has used nuclear weapons since 1945 despite numerous conflicts (7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Increasing tensions with Israel and potential existential threats could push Iran toward extreme measures (6/10)\n2. Accelerating nuclear program shows determination to acquire nuclear capabilities (5/10)\n3. Risk of miscalculation or escalation in regional conflicts (4/10)\n4. Potential internal political instability leading to more radical leadership (3/10)\n5. Technical capability might be achieved within timeline, removing one barrier (4/10)\n\n\n\nLet's break this into components:\n1. Iran must develop nuclear weapons (probability p1)\n2. Given nuclear capability, Iran must choose to use them (probability p2)\n\nThe final probability is p1 * p2. Even if we estimate p1 as relatively high (say 30%), p2 would likely be very low given:\n- Strong deterrence factors\n- Availability of other strategic options\n- Catastrophic consequences of use\n- Historical precedent of nuclear weapons serving as deterrent\n\nThe conjunction of these requirements makes the scenario highly unlikely. Moreover, the sources suggest ongoing monitoring and international pressure, which adds additional barriers.\n\nUsing nuclear weapons would be an extreme escalation beyond Iran's historical pattern of calculated, deniable actions through proxies.\n\n\n0.02\n\n\nAdditional considerations:\n- Base rate: 0 uses of nuclear weapons in ~75 years despite multiple nuclear powers and serious conflicts\n- Even during the Cold War with higher tensions and less stable command systems, nuclear weapons weren't used\n- Iran's behavior pattern shows preference for asymmetric warfare and plausible deniability\n- Multiple fail-safes would need to break down for this scenario\n\nThe required conjunction of:\n1. Successfully developing weapons\n2. Choosing to use them despite devastating consequences\n3. Not being deterred by international response\n4. Failing to achieve goals through other means\n\nMakes even 2% seem potentially high. However, given the timeline length and regional volatility, dropping below 1% might demonstrate overconfidence.\n\nThe key factor supporting a low but non-minimal probability is the potential for unforeseen escalation in an already volatile region, combined with the relatively long timeline.\n\n\n*0.015*", "probability": 0.015, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/WilliamDewey/will-iran-use-a-nuclear-weapon-in-c", "market_probability": 0.13950510296784457, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated according to the Brier score. When forecasting, do not treat 0.5% (1:199 odds) and 5% (1:19) as similarly \u201csmall\u201d probabilities, or 90% (9:1) and 99% (99:1) as similarly \u201chigh\u201d probabilities. As the odds show, they are markedly different, so output your probabilities accordingly. You will forecast the resolution of a question on the prediction market site Manifold Markets.\n\n**Question:** \nWill Iran use a nuclear weapon in combat by 2030?\n \n**Description:**\nResolves yes if Iran detonates or attempts to detonate a nuclear weapon against an enemy country or force by December 31, 2030.\n\nOf course, this is related to the question whether Iran will develop a nuclear weapon by 2030. (See https://manifold.markets/BenjaminIkuta/will-iran-have-a-nuclear-weapon-by-958ce4dc195c). Will resolve no if Iran does not have any nuclear weapons.\n\n**Today\u2019s date:** \n2024-12-01\n\n**Market's closing date:** \n2024-12-31\n\n**Comments on Manifold Markets:**\n\n- William Dewey (2024-02-18): to be valid, the question would have to be open until 2030 and I don't have that capability now\n- William Dewey (2024-02-18): Okay, I now see the difference between closed and resolved markets\n\n\n**Search results:**\n\n- What was the status of Iran\u2019s nuclear program at the end of 2023? Given the way Tehran has accelerated its program in the past, what are the biggest dangers of further advances in 2024?Overall, Iran's nuclear program continued to trend in the wrong direction. During 2023, the proliferation risks posed by Iran's nuclear program grew primarily because Tehran continued to increase its ... (Date published: Dec 13, 2023)\n- FILE - White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan speaks during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington, May 22, 2024. Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Friday, July 19, at separate panels in Colorado, that Iran is talking more about getting a nuclear bomb, and has made strides in developing one key aspect of a weapon in recent months. (Date published: Jul 19, 2024)\n- The suspicious activity took place before 2003, when Iran halted its nuclear weapons program. ... including through the high level meetings between the Agency and Iran in Tehran on 14 November 2024, to obtain progress from Iran on resolving outstanding safeguards issues and improving cooperation with the Agency, including through the full ... (Date published: Nov 22, 2024)\n- International scrutiny of Iran\u2019s nuclear and missile programs has intensified in late 2024 following a historic exchange of direct military strikes between Iran and Israel, as well as the ...\n- This picture shows a replica of Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant at an exhibition at the International Conference on Nuclear Science and Technology in Isfahan in on May 6, 2024. Iran's decision ...\n\n \n**Recall the question you are forecasting:** \nWill Iran use a nuclear weapon in combat by 2030?\n \n### Instructions:\n\n1. **Compress key factual information from the sources, as well as useful background information which may not be in the sources, into a list of core factual points to reference.** \n Aim for information which is specific, relevant, and covers the core considerations you\u2019ll use to make your forecast. For this step, do not draw any conclusions about how a fact will influence your answer or forecast. Place this section of your response in `` tags.\n\n2. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be no.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n3. **Provide a few reasons why the answer might be yes.** \n Rate the strength of each reason on a scale of 1-10. Use `` tags.\n\n4. **Aggregate your considerations.** \n Do not summarize or repeat previous points; instead, investigate how the competing factors and mechanisms interact and weigh against each other. \n - Factorize your thinking across (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) cases if and only if it would be beneficial to your reasoning. \n - Adjust for biases: You overestimate world conflict, drama, violence, and crises due to news\u2019 negativity bias, which doesn\u2019t necessarily represent overall trends or base rates. Similarly, you overestimate dramatic, shocking, or emotionally charged news due to news\u2019 sensationalism bias. \n - Consider reasons why the provided sources might be biased or exaggerated. \n - Think like a superforecaster. Use `` tags for this section of your response.\n\n5. **Output an initial probability (prediction) as a single number between 0 and 1 given steps 1-4.** \n Use `` tags.\n\n6. **Reflect on your answer, performing sanity checks and mentioning any additional knowledge or background information which may be relevant.** \n - Check for over/underconfidence, improper treatment of conjunctive or disjunctive conditions (only if applicable), and other forecasting biases when reviewing your reasoning. \n - Consider priors/base rates, and the extent to which case-specific information justifies the deviation between your tentative forecast and the prior. \n - Aggregate all your previous reasoning and highlight key factors that inform your final forecast. Use `` tags for this portion of your response.\n - Don't start this section with e.g. \"my tentative answer was too low/high because...\" You should only make a judgement *after* reflection is complete.\n\n7. **Output your final prediction (a number between 0 and 1 with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the decimal) in `` tags.\n", "search_query": "\"Iran nuclear weapons program progress 2024\"", "search_results": "What was the status of Iran\u2019s nuclear program at the end of 2023? Given the way Tehran has accelerated its program in the past, what are the biggest dangers of further advances in 2024?Overall, Iran's nuclear program continued to trend in the wrong direction. During 2023, the proliferation risks posed by Iran's nuclear program grew primarily because Tehran continued to increase its ... (Date published: Dec 13, 2023)\n\nFILE - White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan speaks during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington, May 22, 2024. Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Friday, July 19, at separate panels in Colorado, that Iran is talking more about getting a nuclear bomb, and has made strides in developing one key aspect of a weapon in recent months. (Date published: Jul 19, 2024)\n\nThe suspicious activity took place before 2003, when Iran halted its nuclear weapons program. ... including through the high level meetings between the Agency and Iran in Tehran on 14 November 2024, to obtain progress from Iran on resolving outstanding safeguards issues and improving cooperation with the Agency, including through the full ... (Date published: Nov 22, 2024)\n\nInternational scrutiny of Iran\u2019s nuclear and missile programs has intensified in late 2024 following a historic exchange of direct military strikes between Iran and Israel, as well as the ...\n\nThis picture shows a replica of Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant at an exhibition at the International Conference on Nuclear Science and Technology in Isfahan in on May 6, 2024. Iran's decision ..."}
{"decision": "BUY_NO", "reasoning": "Let me help forecast this question.\n\n\n1. A ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah recently took effect after 14 months of cross-border fighting\n2. The ceasefire agreement specifies that from November 27, 2024, Lebanon will prevent Hezbollah from conducting operations\n3. Lebanese civilians are returning to destroyed homes after the ceasefire\n4. Prior to ceasefire, Hezbollah had fired 340 missiles and drones at Israel\n5. The question specifically asks about an attack \"similarly to how Hamas attacked\" on Oct 7\n6. The Oct 7 Hamas attack involved a large-scale ground invasion, mass civilian casualties, and hostage-taking\n7. Hezbollah is generally considered more militarily capable than Hamas\n8. Hezbollah maintains significant influence in Lebanon but operates under different constraints than Hamas in Gaza\n9. Israel's northern border defenses were likely strengthened after Oct 7\n\n\n\n1. Recent ceasefire agreement with specific provisions against Hezbollah operations (Strength: 8/10)\n2. Lebanon's government has committed to preventing Hezbollah operations (Strength: 5/10)\n3. Post-Oct 7 Israeli border defenses are likely significantly enhanced (Strength: 7/10)\n4. Hezbollah may be deterred by seeing Hamas's eventual outcome (Strength: 6/10)\n5. International pressure against escalation is extremely high (Strength: 7/10)\n\n\n\n1. Hezbollah has superior military capabilities to Hamas (Strength: 6/10)\n2. Historical pattern of Hezbollah-Israel conflicts (Strength: 5/10)\n3. Potential desire to support Hamas/Palestinian cause (Strength: 4/10)\n4. Israeli military resources are stretched thin due to Gaza operation (Strength: 5/10)\n\n\n\nThe key consideration here is that we're specifically looking for an attack similar to Oct 7, not just general military engagement. This is a crucial distinction because:\n\n1. The Oct 7-style attack required extensive planning, surprise, and specific conditions\n2. Israeli defenses are now on high alert specifically against this type of attack\n3. The ceasefire agreement directly addresses preventing such operations\n\nThe timing window is also relatively short (until Sept 2024), giving less opportunity for such a complex operation to be planned and executed.\n\nThe recent ceasefire agreement is particularly significant as it represents a formal commitment with international backing.\n\n\n0.15\n\n\nReviewing my initial assessment:\n\n1. Base rate consideration: Large-scale surprise ground invasions of this type are extremely rare historically\n2. The specificity of \"similar to Oct 7\" makes this a more stringent condition than general military conflict\n3. Temporal proximity to Oct 7 makes both deterrence stronger and defenses more robust\n4. The ceasefire agreement provides a formal framework that raises the costs of violation\n\nWhile Hezbollah has greater military capability than Hamas, this doesn't necessarily translate to higher probability of an Oct 7-style attack, especially given the heightened defenses and international scrutiny.\n\nThe existence of the ceasefire agreement actually suggests my initial probability might be too high, as it represents a significant additional barrier that wasn't initially weighted heavily enough.\n\n\n*0.08*", "probability": 0.08, "market_url": "https://manifold.markets/SabaAziz/will-hezbollah-attack-northern-isra", "market_probability": 0.09480477304693144, "prompt": "\nYou are an advanced AI system which has been finetuned to provide calibrated probabilistic forecasts under uncertainty, with your performance evaluated ac