Hacker News Reader

Comment by fwipsy | Hacker News Reader

I'll admit that I still see some value in prediction markets in theory, but in practice the way they were implemented seems to have caused an order of magnitude more harm.

In retrospect their misuse as a loophole for sports gambling was an obvious outcome. Seems like every promising new technology inevitably is used for evil. Cryptocurrency is mostly used for criminals. Social media displaced more meaningful forms of connection. We're already starting to see this with AI (psychosis, slop, assisting bad actors) but I'm afraid it will get much worse.

View on HN

> In retrospect their misuse as a loophole for sports gambling was an obvious outcome.

This isn't a 'benefit of hindsight' thing; a lot of people called this out in advance, just like all the other tech you listed.

We need to stop listening to the people who are wrong about everything, rather than pretending the maximalist seeking of profit with no regulation is a reasonable position. We know it doesn't work.

I guess most of my positions on prediction markets came from Scott Alexander, e.g. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prediction-market-faq which was posted in 2022. The implicit argument seems to be "We should come up with some way to regulate these so that it's less harmful than existing forms of gambling." I think the part that was harder to foresee was the Trump admin suddenly seizing on them as a loophole to override state regulation of sports betting. Certainly there does not seem to have been any careful consultation with prediction-market experts to determine the most robust, socially beneficial laws.

I understand that "Things would be great if they'd done it right!" is in some sense unfalsifiable. But also I think it's pretty clear that the current regime is geared solely towards maximizing the profits of prediction market companies and Trump Jr.

So I will admit the idea of "maybe you could make some guesses about the future and if you're right it's worth something" sounds appealing - like if I guessed people would get perfect nutrition by IV and not bother with eating and it came true and I made money from it, or the same about making money speculating on when the first Mars colony is founded, etc. But what I don't get, taking a step back, and never have, is what society and the world get out of having more accurate guesses about this. Even setting the obvious negatives (if you have your retirement savings sitting against a Mars colony before 2030 maybe you have some incentive to sabotage a launch in early 2029) aside, what are the positive values supposed to be? And I've never really understood this.

If we knew the COVID pandemic was coming, we could have prepared better. If we knew what AI would look like in 5 years, we could write laws for that proactively rather than reactively. The Fed could look at prediction markets to decide whether to raise the interest rate.

Basically, it depends on there being competent, good-willed people in power using them to inform their decisions. That feels like a bit of a joke right now, but things weren't always this way.

What would the COVID pandemic market have been before COVID existed, and what information would have been available to steer the market towards a useful prediction?

“Will there be another coronavirus mutation resulting in a pandemic in 2005, 2006, 2018, 2019…” doesn’t seem like it would have been helpful, except in the like two month or so window after detection and the WHO announcement when alarm bells were already going off but it still hadn’t diffused into popular consciousness yet.

It was quite clear covid was potentially a danger months before the "full outbreak". There were short news articles "in the margins" about a disease in Wuhan, with conspiracy theorists talking it up. It would plausibly have given us a month early notice. Hard to say how much that would have helped, but it might have improved the total outcome somewhat.

Knowing whether a major pandemic has a 2% chance vs. 0.2% chance per year has major policy implications. Just like the difference between a 100-year floodplain and a 500-year floodplain has important insurance implications, even though you probably won't get flooded on any given year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com