I strongly disagree with this. I agree that there are competing considerations (weirdness, unusual dynamics when people are losing money), but I think that the factors pointing to the other side (betting cuts through a lot of bullshit and might be particularly informative in times of crises, bets allow a stronger signal of belief than speech, bets reward those who are correct) still trump them.
Also,
force people to express certainty around their statements
is incorrect, and in fact bets allow people to express shades of uncertainty by changing the odds and the betting amount.
I’m not surprised that you would strongly disagree with this. Sorry if this is a bit blunt, but given that you very recently launched a public forecast on the love life of a community member, without their permission, to the dismay of many people on Twitter, I wouldn’t think you have a particularly calibrated frame of reference as to when we should hold off on bets.
As you might imagine, I also disagree about whether that market was per-se bad. I think that there was a small information cascade about that particular topic because people in the EA community didn’t want to appear mean, & so better epistemic infrastructure would have actually helped.
I ended up removing that market because I got too much pushback on it, including from my boss, but Twitter wasn’t actually up to to hosting a nuanced discussion on the pros and cons, just social opprobrium.
I also strongly disagree with the OP. Giving up betting as an epistemic practice ought to be a non-starter, similar to “let’s take a month-long break from assigning probabilities to things”.
Where did I say anything about “giving up betting as an epistemic practice”? My post specifically listed why I know it’s good epistemic practice.
All I said was that during a crisis that involves the potential loss of money of 100,000 people, constantly suggesting 4-digit bets on public online spaces as soon as two people have the slightest disagreement may not be the most empathetic thing to do.
I strongly disagree with this. I agree that there are competing considerations (weirdness, unusual dynamics when people are losing money), but I think that the factors pointing to the other side (betting cuts through a lot of bullshit and might be particularly informative in times of crises, bets allow a stronger signal of belief than speech, bets reward those who are correct) still trump them.
Also,
is incorrect, and in fact bets allow people to express shades of uncertainty by changing the odds and the betting amount.
I’m not surprised that you would strongly disagree with this. Sorry if this is a bit blunt, but given that you very recently launched a public forecast on the love life of a community member, without their permission, to the dismay of many people on Twitter, I wouldn’t think you have a particularly calibrated frame of reference as to when we should hold off on bets.
As you might imagine, I also disagree about whether that market was per-se bad. I think that there was a small information cascade about that particular topic because people in the EA community didn’t want to appear mean, & so better epistemic infrastructure would have actually helped.
I ended up removing that market because I got too much pushback on it, including from my boss, but Twitter wasn’t actually up to to hosting a nuanced discussion on the pros and cons, just social opprobrium.
I also strongly disagree with the OP. Giving up betting as an epistemic practice ought to be a non-starter, similar to “let’s take a month-long break from assigning probabilities to things”.
Where did I say anything about “giving up betting as an epistemic practice”? My post specifically listed why I know it’s good epistemic practice.
All I said was that during a crisis that involves the potential loss of money of 100,000 people, constantly suggesting 4-digit bets on public online spaces as soon as two people have the slightest disagreement may not be the most empathetic thing to do.