If the forecasting models were so good that people were actually consistently beating prediction markets, they wouldn't be starting startups to be selling it.
And even if it is good enough, once you're shelling out thousands of dollars a year in research costs, does that give you any remaining alpha?
For Pete’s sake lets outlaw prediction markets already instead of hyping them in crappy greed-posts like this one
I am embarrassed this “rationalist, I’m so much smarter than you, so I know better” asshole Scott Alexander hasn't been skewered yet for promotion of gambling (prediction markets) that people like Trumps son are making millions of on
So this person was known for thoughtful blog posts, but has since become a total AI booster. It's probably a gonzo-like effect through the various subcultures he aims to explore, but it paints a very bad picture of them. Imagine if Louis Theroux became a scientologist.
As prediction markets already show, forecasts can influence the outcomes they are trying to predict.
What happens when these models become extremely accurate and widely trusted? A forecast like “Will there be a war between countries A and B?” may itself affect whether the war happens.
If the model says there is a 1% chance of war, little changes. But if it says 90%, governments, markets, militaries, and the public may react: capital flees, troops mobilize, diplomatic trust collapses, and each side starts preparing for the other side’s preparation. The prediction helps make itself true.
The same feedback loop could apply to bank runs, market crashes, civil unrest, elections, and corporate failures.
At some point, the most accurate forecaster may become less like an observer and more like an actor with enormous power over the system it predicts.
Given a powerful enough AI with enough outlays (eg. a Playwright instant), can an AI cheat by influencing the real world and self-fulfil its prediction?
Eg. Is corp ABC's stock price going to go down by 10% in 30 days?
Orchestrate a disinformation campaign on the 29th day to tank ABC's stock price.
There’s something of a footnote in here that - raises a moral or even spiritual question.
Scott says that one of the great things about superforcasters is that some people who regularly make bad decisions will be able to make better decisions by asking superforcasters questions like “Is this marriage likely to end in divorce.”
And there’s a number of profound questions in here about - what are we all here for?
There’s something of a philosophical horseshoe theory here which is like - I might argue - this sounds like astrology or other metaphysical forms of divination.
And the counter argument would be something like - no it’s completely different because this is true. Which is of course what all the spiritual traditions say about each other.
So it begs the question - is it the solution or the process.
Is using a super forecaster better because it’s “real”; or like I think I could make the argument it’s worse for that reason. Asking your grandmother or spiritual advisor is part of a process of existence. You ask multiple people, you have the experience, maybe you marry the wrong person, you learn and you grow.
14 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 59.3 ms ] threadAnd even if it is good enough, once you're shelling out thousands of dollars a year in research costs, does that give you any remaining alpha?
I am embarrassed this “rationalist, I’m so much smarter than you, so I know better” asshole Scott Alexander hasn't been skewered yet for promotion of gambling (prediction markets) that people like Trumps son are making millions of on
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/...
As prediction markets already show, forecasts can influence the outcomes they are trying to predict.
What happens when these models become extremely accurate and widely trusted? A forecast like “Will there be a war between countries A and B?” may itself affect whether the war happens.
If the model says there is a 1% chance of war, little changes. But if it says 90%, governments, markets, militaries, and the public may react: capital flees, troops mobilize, diplomatic trust collapses, and each side starts preparing for the other side’s preparation. The prediction helps make itself true.
The same feedback loop could apply to bank runs, market crashes, civil unrest, elections, and corporate failures.
At some point, the most accurate forecaster may become less like an observer and more like an actor with enormous power over the system it predicts.
Eg. Is corp ABC's stock price going to go down by 10% in 30 days?
Orchestrate a disinformation campaign on the 29th day to tank ABC's stock price.
As soon as the prediction market says “this path here has a 25% chance of curing cancer” all sorts of money is moved away from other things.
It will absolutely cause political outcomes not just predict them.
And then of course there’s the cheating element. Anything that’s feasible to change the outcome.
Maybe this just contributes to efficient markets? Or maybe the continued quests towards utopia have dystopic externalities.
Play if you want, and call yourself a genius if you win, but only with money you can afford to lose.
Scott says that one of the great things about superforcasters is that some people who regularly make bad decisions will be able to make better decisions by asking superforcasters questions like “Is this marriage likely to end in divorce.”
And there’s a number of profound questions in here about - what are we all here for?
There’s something of a philosophical horseshoe theory here which is like - I might argue - this sounds like astrology or other metaphysical forms of divination.
And the counter argument would be something like - no it’s completely different because this is true. Which is of course what all the spiritual traditions say about each other.
So it begs the question - is it the solution or the process.
Is using a super forecaster better because it’s “real”; or like I think I could make the argument it’s worse for that reason. Asking your grandmother or spiritual advisor is part of a process of existence. You ask multiple people, you have the experience, maybe you marry the wrong person, you learn and you grow.
But when you outsource that decision making.