I agree with some of this. But let me attempt a conciliatory take: less of forecasting money and effort should go to platforms and tournaments, but more should go to identifying existing, nascent forecasts (people using the word “probably” or “unlikely” about empirical matters) and creating markets (even unsubsidized Manifold markets would be helpful on the margin). I think it would be very helpful for someone to go through popular EA forum posts and org research documents and do this systematically.
But I am also a bit skeptical that creating lots of unsubsidized markets would generate much positive information. My evidence/experience suggests that most people who are involved in these matters, don’t want to do a substantial amount of research into this sort of very nuanced, detailed questions that are the highest value, so the small amount of predictions you get might just be noise.
I agree with some of this. But let me attempt a conciliatory take: less of forecasting money and effort should go to platforms and tournaments, but more should go to identifying existing, nascent forecasts (people using the word “probably” or “unlikely” about empirical matters) and creating markets (even unsubsidized Manifold markets would be helpful on the margin). I think it would be very helpful for someone to go through popular EA forum posts and org research documents and do this systematically.
I started something in this direction here.
But I am also a bit skeptical that creating lots of unsubsidized markets would generate much positive information. My evidence/experience suggests that most people who are involved in these matters, don’t want to do a substantial amount of research into this sort of very nuanced, detailed questions that are the highest value, so the small amount of predictions you get might just be noise.