It was quite hard to get to this forecast, and in the end I don’t think it will be that useful. I think it’s just generally really hard. I don’t have a clear sense for why Eliezer and I weren’t able to get to more bets, but I’m not that surprised.
I do think that this kind of betting has a lot of hazards and there’s a good chance that we are both going t come out behind in social EV. For example: (i) if you try to do it reasonably quickly then you basically just know there are reasons that your position is dumb that you just haven’t noticed, (ii) it’s easier to throw something in someone’s face as a mistake than to gloat about it as a win, (iii) there is all kinds of adverse selection...
Several different tough hurdles have to be passed, and usually aren’t. For one, they would have to both even agree on criteria that they both think are relevant enough, and that they can define well-enough for it to be resolvable.
They also have to agree to an offer with whatever odds, and the amount of money.
They then also have to be risk-tolerant enough to go through knowing they may lose money, or may be humiliated somewhat (though with really good betting etiquette, IMO it need not humiliating if they’re good sports about it). And also the obvious counterparty risk, as people may simply not pay up.
Can someone explain to me why we don’t see people with differing complex views on something placing bets in a similar fashion more often?
It was quite hard to get to this forecast, and in the end I don’t think it will be that useful. I think it’s just generally really hard. I don’t have a clear sense for why Eliezer and I weren’t able to get to more bets, but I’m not that surprised.
I do think that this kind of betting has a lot of hazards and there’s a good chance that we are both going t come out behind in social EV. For example: (i) if you try to do it reasonably quickly then you basically just know there are reasons that your position is dumb that you just haven’t noticed, (ii) it’s easier to throw something in someone’s face as a mistake than to gloat about it as a win, (iii) there is all kinds of adverse selection...
Several different tough hurdles have to be passed, and usually aren’t. For one, they would have to both even agree on criteria that they both think are relevant enough, and that they can define well-enough for it to be resolvable.
They also have to agree to an offer with whatever odds, and the amount of money.
They then also have to be risk-tolerant enough to go through knowing they may lose money, or may be humiliated somewhat (though with really good betting etiquette, IMO it need not humiliating if they’re good sports about it). And also the obvious counterparty risk, as people may simply not pay up.