This is for advice on resolving /singer/who-are-the-top-10-ai-researchers-a
For "rank by probability" I'm imaging something like what Adrian suggests here:
It’s not a perfect method, but “resolve to top 10 by percentage excluding last minute whale manipulation” is much better. Especially if you randomize the close time.
Comments with suggestions are appreciated and will be tipped.
It depends on what your goal is, if it's to find out who Manifold thinks the top 10 AI researchers are, then I would honestly vote to just N/A the market and then create a poll. If you just want to create a fun market for the fun of it, then I would vote to just stick with your original resolution criteria.
My ideal resolution method would be a poll where people submit their ranked top ten, and being ranked #1 is worth more points than being ranked #10. But I don't think that's really feasible. Still, I think some sort of poll that's independent of the market is probably preferable, even if it's a little wonky to extract a top ten.
The idea with the "separate poll" is that users would bet on the poll outcome. Example pair:
@singer the only problem with the poll option is it's laborious since Manifold doesn't have an option like "you can bet on 10 of this list" and only lets you select one option
@benshindel What do you think of this proposal?
https://manifold.markets/singer/who-are-the-top-10-ai-researchers-a#jyf9fet1ofr
It’s not a perfect method, but “resolve to top 10 by percentage excluding last minute whale manipulation” is much better. Especially if you randomize the close time.
@singer I mean, I could just set up a 10k limit order on Vladimir Putin at 90% if that's the resolution method lol
@benshindel If it's not done at the last minute, I think that in theory the prediction market is supposed to be able to adjust to that type of manipulation (and you'll lose a lot of mana).
@benshindel yes but there's literally no incentive for anyone to bet on their "favorite"?! I could just bet on these as if they're stocks... the resolution criteria is self-referential so it's meaningless
@benshindel "something something Schelling points" would be the answer, but I don't have much else to back it up with
@singer I mean, that's kind of fair, but if everyone sees "Daniel Shapiro" or some random AI researcher at 90%, they may assume that person deserves some spot in the top 10 based on info they're unaware of