"Prediction markets are increasingly being cited by government officials, and the public is paying more attention to them than ever before. Much of the impact for prediction markets specifically seems negative (e.g. via incentivizing gambling on low-value topics), but the broader cultural shift suggests there may be an opportunity for better uses of forecasting to enter public consciousness as well."
I think that this is a reason for pessimism on impact, not optimism. Kalshi and Polymarket are primarily sports gambling platforms by volume, immune to state regulation for reasons that may, in the perspective of a cynic, be related to them paying Donald Trump Jr. undisclosed sums of money for undisclosed quantities of work. This does not, I think, inspire particular trust in their efficacy or accuracy. The new legislative push could shift this (I haven't dug into it deeply), but by default I expect the shift from "odd thing some experts claim is good" to "the tool for corruption, leaking military secrets, insider trading, and sports gambling" to worsen perceptions of accuracy (broadly defined halo effect).
That was fucked up and wrong. I'm sad and angry that it happened to you. Thank you, not just for speaking up, but for doing so with such clarity and care.
If you decide, by default, that everyone in your group is self-aware, well-intentioned, and telling the truth, and you then make their intent a central factor in assessing misconduct, you will almost never find abuse. You’ve made it structurally impossible. And this is how you end up with a culture that enables sexual harassment.
I think that this is going to be the main generalized point I take away (as separate from, say, my opinions about CEA or EA norms). Sometimes people will lie, and if your structure does not interrogate that you will fail to do right by people. I am, of course, also disappointed in and angry with CEA leadership, including the people who received the document without, it seems, so much as a "what the fuck" to Riley.
Chatting with you was something I looked forward to at every EAG.
One point that occurs to me is that firms run by senior employees are reasonably common in white-collar professions: certainly not all of them, but many doctors function under this system, and it's practically normative for lawyers, operates in theory for university professors, and I believe to a lesser extent accountants and financiers. There is likely to be a managing partner, but that person serves with the consent of the senior partners.
A democracy to which new members must be voted in, socialized for a number of years, and buy in their own stake seems to have substantial advantages over one where everyone gets a vote the moment that they join. I also suspect that not understanding what they're engaged in as a political experiment is helpful for reducing certain types of distractions.
With that in mind, expanding coops among the white-collar elite seems relatively practical, and elite persuasion is always a powerful tool.
For what it's worth, I upvoted and disagree-voted, because I think I think you're wrong and because you clearly put thought and effort into your writing, and produced the sort of content I think we should generally have more of, even though I'm annoyed locally that "don't do either" is a much easier comment to write than "here's the analysis you asked for", leading to the only serious comments on the post being people stating your view.
This is a good discussion, but I think that you're missing the strongest argument, in this context, against donation-splitting: we're not in a one-shot. Within the context of a one-shot, it makes much more sense to donation-split. But there's a charity that I donate to in part because I am convinced that they are very financially constrained (iteration impact). Furthermore, Donors can respond to each other within a year. If most EAs give around December/January, OpenPhil and GWWC can distribute in February, after hearing from relevant orgs how much funding they received. If a charity is credible in saying that they're under their expected funding, again, people can donate in response. So in practice I don't expect donation splitting to have that positive an effect on charity financing uncertainty, particularly compared to something like multi-year commitments.
Looking at this comment after Nonlinear, I think it holds up. There exists a point at which an org loses the (moral, not legal) right to see questions / a writeup in advance, and Nonlinear was past it. Legal threats, contacting the people you spoke with, and contacting your employer are classic examples of this. I am also sympathetic to journalists covering industries that are known to react strongly, such as oil and tobacco. But the items in the list you provide do not come close to the bar of the org being untrustworthy, and that is the bar I think must be cleared.
I think that distinguishing between 1-8 hours (preferably paid), up to 40 hours, and 1-6 months, is very important here. I am happiest about the shortest ones, particularly for people who have to leave a job (part of why I think that OP is talking about the latter sort).
Correct: I'm vaguely aware of Kat Woods posting on FB, but haven't investigated Nonlinear in any depth before: having an explicit definition of "what information I'm working with" seemed useful.
Yes, Nonlinear is smaller than expected.
I outlined a bad org with problems, even after adjusting for a hostile reporter and a vengeful ex-employee. I think that the evidence is somewhat weaker than what I expect, not counting that I trust you personally, and the allegations are stronger/worse. Overall, it was a negative update about Nonlinear.
I think part of the disconnect, from my perspective, is that I have experience with small scrappy conventions that deliver good talks and an enjoyable time and a large central room where people can mingle. The scrappier science-fiction conventions seem to charge in the range of $60-$120, usually on the lower side, and, while relying very heavily on volunteer labor and physical assets, about break even. The fancier ones might charge $250/person/weekend. That's not the true price, since it excludes what dealers pay for access, advertising, etc. But my sense of con budgets is that it is at least half of the true price.
Obviously a large chunk of that is the $240 on food that you're spending and they're not. Another chunk of the cost is location: said cons tend to be out in the boonies of their relevant cities, passing along to attendees costs of travel or increased hotel prices.
The context that non-profit conventions tend to be $400+ is helpful: thank you. I really appreciate the transparency.
(COI flag: I have an application out with FRI)
"Prediction markets are increasingly being cited by government officials, and the public is paying more attention to them than ever before. Much of the impact for prediction markets specifically seems negative (e.g. via incentivizing gambling on low-value topics), but the broader cultural shift suggests there may be an opportunity for better uses of forecasting to enter public consciousness as well."
I think that this is a reason for pessimism on impact, not optimism. Kalshi and Polymarket are primarily sports gambling platforms by volume, immune to state regulation for reasons that may, in the perspective of a cynic, be related to them paying Donald Trump Jr. undisclosed sums of money for undisclosed quantities of work. This does not, I think, inspire particular trust in their efficacy or accuracy. The new legislative push could shift this (I haven't dug into it deeply), but by default I expect the shift from "odd thing some experts claim is good" to "the tool for corruption, leaking military secrets, insider trading, and sports gambling" to worsen perceptions of accuracy (broadly defined halo effect).
That was fucked up and wrong. I'm sad and angry that it happened to you. Thank you, not just for speaking up, but for doing so with such clarity and care.
I think that this is going to be the main generalized point I take away (as separate from, say, my opinions about CEA or EA norms). Sometimes people will lie, and if your structure does not interrogate that you will fail to do right by people. I am, of course, also disappointed in and angry with CEA leadership, including the people who received the document without, it seems, so much as a "what the fuck" to Riley.
Chatting with you was something I looked forward to at every EAG.
One point that occurs to me is that firms run by senior employees are reasonably common in white-collar professions: certainly not all of them, but many doctors function under this system, and it's practically normative for lawyers, operates in theory for university professors, and I believe to a lesser extent accountants and financiers. There is likely to be a managing partner, but that person serves with the consent of the senior partners.
A democracy to which new members must be voted in, socialized for a number of years, and buy in their own stake seems to have substantial advantages over one where everyone gets a vote the moment that they join. I also suspect that not understanding what they're engaged in as a political experiment is helpful for reducing certain types of distractions.
With that in mind, expanding coops among the white-collar elite seems relatively practical, and elite persuasion is always a powerful tool.
For what it's worth, I upvoted and disagree-voted, because I think I think you're wrong and because you clearly put thought and effort into your writing, and produced the sort of content I think we should generally have more of, even though I'm annoyed locally that "don't do either" is a much easier comment to write than "here's the analysis you asked for", leading to the only serious comments on the post being people stating your view.
This is a good discussion, but I think that you're missing the strongest argument, in this context, against donation-splitting: we're not in a one-shot. Within the context of a one-shot, it makes much more sense to donation-split. But there's a charity that I donate to in part because I am convinced that they are very financially constrained (iteration impact). Furthermore, Donors can respond to each other within a year. If most EAs give around December/January, OpenPhil and GWWC can distribute in February, after hearing from relevant orgs how much funding they received. If a charity is credible in saying that they're under their expected funding, again, people can donate in response. So in practice I don't expect donation splitting to have that positive an effect on charity financing uncertainty, particularly compared to something like multi-year commitments.
Nonlinear, thank you. Edited.
Looking at this comment after Nonlinear, I think it holds up. There exists a point at which an org loses the (moral, not legal) right to see questions / a writeup in advance, and Nonlinear was past it. Legal threats, contacting the people you spoke with, and contacting your employer are classic examples of this. I am also sympathetic to journalists covering industries that are known to react strongly, such as oil and tobacco. But the items in the list you provide do not come close to the bar of the org being untrustworthy, and that is the bar I think must be cleared.
I think that distinguishing between 1-8 hours (preferably paid), up to 40 hours, and 1-6 months, is very important here. I am happiest about the shortest ones, particularly for people who have to leave a job (part of why I think that OP is talking about the latter sort).
Correct: I'm vaguely aware of Kat Woods posting on FB, but haven't investigated Nonlinear in any depth before: having an explicit definition of "what information I'm working with" seemed useful.
Yes, Nonlinear is smaller than expected.
I outlined a bad org with problems, even after adjusting for a hostile reporter and a vengeful ex-employee. I think that the evidence is somewhat weaker than what I expect, not counting that I trust you personally, and the allegations are stronger/worse. Overall, it was a negative update about Nonlinear.
I think part of the disconnect, from my perspective, is that I have experience with small scrappy conventions that deliver good talks and an enjoyable time and a large central room where people can mingle. The scrappier science-fiction conventions seem to charge in the range of $60-$120, usually on the lower side, and, while relying very heavily on volunteer labor and physical assets, about break even. The fancier ones might charge $250/person/weekend. That's not the true price, since it excludes what dealers pay for access, advertising, etc. But my sense of con budgets is that it is at least half of the true price.
Obviously a large chunk of that is the $240 on food that you're spending and they're not. Another chunk of the cost is location: said cons tend to be out in the boonies of their relevant cities, passing along to attendees costs of travel or increased hotel prices.
The context that non-profit conventions tend to be $400+ is helpful: thank you. I really appreciate the transparency.