[mikgp]

It feels like Scott is taking the bull case here - but like “perfect” information will pervert markets in bizarre ways.

As soon as the prediction market says “this path here has a 25% chance of curing cancer” all sorts of money is moved away from other things.

It will absolutely cause political outcomes not just predict them.

And then of course there’s the cheating element. Anything that’s feasible to change the outcome.

Maybe this just contributes to efficient markets? Or maybe the continued quests towards utopia have dystopic externalities.

[ddp26]

But Scott's point is more: why even have markets? Once you have the superforecasting available on the questions you care about, why do you need to publish it for everyone to also react to?

[mikgp]

I mean he explicitly at the end says there will be a new era of prediction markets:

"This, then, is my prediction for the AI superforecaster future: for basic questions, your off-the-shelf AI chatbot will be able to offer opinionated probabilities superior to those of any human. For more controversial or bias-laden questions, a new era of prediction markets will smooth over differences in brand and model and efficiently aggregate all AIs’ opinions."

But one reason that you would publish it for everyone else to react was exactly what I said, because if you can show people that a superhuman AI believes a certain outcome is more likely, you impact whether or not that certain outcome is more likely. Which feels like a flaw in this version of the future. That in fact you could overcorrect and make the markets less efficient.