Definity Markets News

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

We could map the entirety of analytic philosophy using this question.

The list of answers to this question form a constitution of truth that can be aligned decentrally by a free market.

A network state could use a predictive market constitution to define its smart social contracts.

Large scale AI systems should have intrinsic guardrail behaviors that no one actor can override.

This prediction is effectively the same as this one and nobody can explain why this mechanism isn't able to align AI at scale. https://manifold.markets/Krantz/krantz-mechanism-demonstration

Betting on philosophy seems like a fun way to (1) learn philosophy (2) contribute to a transhumanist utopia world where our net incomes are highly correlated with how much beneficial stuff we taught the public domain AI.

Constitutions play a critical role in the frontier methods for aligning AI.

A good AI should not kill people.

There would be a dramatic positive change in the world if teenagers and homeless folks could earn crypto on an app they download for free to argue philosophy with an AI until they can either prove the AI is right or prove it is wrong.

Philosophy is primarily the pursuit of defining language.

A duty to reason is the foundation for goodness.

I have free will.

A good AI should not infringe on the rights, autonomy or property of humans.

We should stop doing massive training runs.

The evolutionary environment contains perverse incentives that have led to substantial false consciousness in humans

Induction is not justified.

A good AI, by design, requires large scale human participation to grow.

A good AI requires large scale humanity verification before it accepts new data as true.

The principle of uniformity in nature is self evident or justified by self evident facts.

God exists.

AI should not create novel content.

The quality of mercy is not strained...

2025 [resolves on Jan 1st]

The death of Jimmy Carter

The Paris Olympics closing ceremony

The launch of GPT-5

The release of the iPhone 16

Both the 2024 US & UK General Elections

Bitcoin reaches $100k

Elon Musk has another child

GTA 6 release

The death of Joe Biden

The war in Ukraine comes to an end

A Category 5 hurricane hits the US

Peak Oil Demand

The Enhanced Games opening ceremony

Man’s return to the moon

EV sales in the USA overtake ICE

Will Smith attends the Oscars

Weak AGI achieved, as defined by the resolution of the Metaculus market on the topic

AGI is achieved as judged by Manifold

Bitcoin falls to $30k

A "superintelligent oracle" achieved, as defined by the resolution of the Metaculus market on the topic

Donald Trump goes to jail

Prince William and Kate divorce

YES

The site is never marketed well enough outside of the rationalist-adjacent community, and there are not enough rationalist-adjacent people to sustain the site.

It is never able to get a critical mass of cis women.

The basic premise of the site is too complicated for people, who prefer to use simpler dating apps.

The concept of gambling on romance is unappealing to most people.

Too few people are interested in trading on random people's matches

It just never ends up taking off, without any particular flaw being the obvious cause

It is never able to get a critical mass of active profiles.

People don't think strangers are more qualified to choose matches for them than themselves

Not enough rationalussy

Other

extreme "everything is public" approach alienates userbase

Manifold as a whole shuts down without it ever having taken off

Unpopular combo of excessive transparency imposed on users / lack of transparency from staff

James pivots to something else

Everyone on earth finds love

people leave the site after finding a match

lack of moderation / lots of harassment make the platform unpleasant to be on

Stripe threatens to stop processing payments

(threat of) legal action

another dating app captures our target audience

It is never able to get a critical mass of good SREs.

It allows minors to join and gets bad PR or legal issues as a result

Messaging failure: The unique value proposition is clear, predictive market match making, however the deliverable does not appear to be clear. Manifold.love could be calibrated to deliver hook-ups or long-term relationships, not both.

Markets are not predictive due to difficulty measuring or defining outcomes, or due to low probability of outcomes

The administration team proves incapable of writing or enforcing rules that effectively keep members safe, and this causes some form of scandal.

All the good dates join @Mira 's cult and the remainder are left to suffer alone - wailing and gnashing their teeth as incels.

Apple gets subjected to financial penalties

Opening Up of NFC and Other Hardware Features - Apple is required to provide third-party developers access to hardware features currently restricted, such as the NFC chip used for tap-to-pay transactions.

IApple gets mandated to implement interoperability measures for messaging and smartwatch functionalities

The ruling forces Apple to allow developers to use their payment systems within their apps, bypassing Apple's in-app purchase system and the associated fees.

The court sets clear deadlines for when Apple must implement these changes, such as within 90 days of the ruling, providing a clear timeline for verification.

The court orders Apple to revise Apple's App Store guidelines to allow for more competition.

Establishment of a mechanism for ongoing oversight of Apple's compliance with the lawsuit's rulings.

Apple is compelled to allow developers more freedom in presentation and monetization of apps, including enabling different app discovery methods (ex : use of icons or tiles for mini programs, categorizing them, or using virtual currencies).

Mandatory Allowance of Third-Party App Stores and Sideloading

The court finds Apple guilty of monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the performance smartphone market and/or the broader smartphone market in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The court defines specific permissible actions for super apps and cloud gaming services on iOS, like not requiring each game or service within a super app to be submitted to the App Store individually.

If state antitrust laws are violated, Apple could be fined a specific dollar amount per incident of anticompetitive conduct, as defined by state statutes. (Conditional market)

The court requires Apple to permit cloud gaming services on its devices

The lawsuit leads to a decision that deems Apple's 30% commission rate as excessive.

The court may issue injunctions to prohibit Apple from continuing the specific practices that are identified as anticompetitive, such as using control over app distribution and private APIs to undermine competition.

The court mandates a specific maximum percentage for App Store commissions, such as reducing the current 30% fee to a lower figure, like 15% or 10%.

The court orders Apple to apply its rules and guidelines fairly across all apps and not enforce them selectively to benefit its services or harm competitors.

Apple gets ordered to give restitution to developers or consumers who have been adversely affected by its policies.

The court could require a measurable increase in the number of apps or services in previously restricted categories, such as digital wallets or cloud gaming, available on iOS within a certain period post-ruling.