> The fund will consider a wide range of consumer-facing opportunities but will concentrate predominantly on online gaming, prediction markets, sports media, ecommerce, health and wellness, and interactive entertainment.
Yeah, resolution oracle services was the only plausible profit center I could identify when I thought about how you would monetize a play-money prediction market / crowdsourced forecasting oracle. You could build a "Chinese wall" internally and have a different team of people pre-approving and resolving the questions, through an anonymization filter, not necessarily even knowing which are real live questions and which are test data. Once you have spun up this system and validated it on your own internal questions you could start to think about contracting it out. I wasn't sure if this was actually enough to justify the whole thing as a business but it was what I could find for a revenue generator.
The alternatives seem to be gamification targeting broke college students who are too poor for the real-money prediction markets (Manifold), or else some kind of vaguely defined forecasting consulting service like Metaculus is attempting that obviously isn't serious or likely to work.
Oh, I want to add that I regard the sudden imposed consensus that "AI Forecasting" is the wave of the future and the most relevant thing that all human judgement / crowd oracles should be focusing on as bizarre, completely unjustified as far as I can see, and a great example of the toxic epistemics and terrible procyclical "whiplash" decision-making that surrounds Open Phil
...and the "Weakly General AI" question is absolutely not any more serious than the tracker you're criticizing. It's one of the dumbest questions on Metaculus and exposes how broken their processes for question curation are and how dishonest they are about their publicity. You can just click through the full "load more comments" scroll until you see everything, then dump that into an LLM and ask for an explanation -- it will tell you how the criteria are totally janky, have moved around repeatedly over the life of the question, been largely superseded in their literal meaning by changes in the AI landscape itself (and thus substituted with vague "house rules" type understandings...), and literally at this point come down to whether anyone will build an AI under specific artificially narrow criteria to solve an old Atari game that used to be, but is no longer, a relevant incremental challenge to new AI systems
Disagree this is imposed consensus. This is like, just my opinion man, after thinking about how difficult the forecasting work I do is to automate with a team of 10 engineers + hearing about some models.
Clarification:
> The fund will consider a wide range of consumer-facing opportunities but will concentrate predominantly on online gaming, prediction markets, sports media, ecommerce, health and wellness, and interactive entertainment.
So not only prediction markets
Yeah, resolution oracle services was the only plausible profit center I could identify when I thought about how you would monetize a play-money prediction market / crowdsourced forecasting oracle. You could build a "Chinese wall" internally and have a different team of people pre-approving and resolving the questions, through an anonymization filter, not necessarily even knowing which are real live questions and which are test data. Once you have spun up this system and validated it on your own internal questions you could start to think about contracting it out. I wasn't sure if this was actually enough to justify the whole thing as a business but it was what I could find for a revenue generator.
The alternatives seem to be gamification targeting broke college students who are too poor for the real-money prediction markets (Manifold), or else some kind of vaguely defined forecasting consulting service like Metaculus is attempting that obviously isn't serious or likely to work.
Oh, I want to add that I regard the sudden imposed consensus that "AI Forecasting" is the wave of the future and the most relevant thing that all human judgement / crowd oracles should be focusing on as bizarre, completely unjustified as far as I can see, and a great example of the toxic epistemics and terrible procyclical "whiplash" decision-making that surrounds Open Phil
...and the "Weakly General AI" question is absolutely not any more serious than the tracker you're criticizing. It's one of the dumbest questions on Metaculus and exposes how broken their processes for question curation are and how dishonest they are about their publicity. You can just click through the full "load more comments" scroll until you see everything, then dump that into an LLM and ask for an explanation -- it will tell you how the criteria are totally janky, have moved around repeatedly over the life of the question, been largely superseded in their literal meaning by changes in the AI landscape itself (and thus substituted with vague "house rules" type understandings...), and literally at this point come down to whether anyone will build an AI under specific artificially narrow criteria to solve an old Atari game that used to be, but is no longer, a relevant incremental challenge to new AI systems
Thanks!
> imposed consensus
Disagree this is imposed consensus. This is like, just my opinion man, after thinking about how difficult the forecasting work I do is to automate with a team of 10 engineers + hearing about some models.