This will be resolved according to my opinion to (mostly likely) a single answer.
But I will try to incorporate feedback from the rest of the Manifold Team and users.
1,000
3.00Bit annoying that there's not a generic "AI-assistance" question. I think the fact that AI will pick up clarifications made by the question author in the comments and retroactively add them to the question description / criteria is way more important and impactful than the creation tool.
Buying NO on cash prizes via sweepstakes on the basis that most (?) users can't actually use them, and, having a quick glance, it seems to me they aren't particularly popular. Biggest feature? Yes, by far. But most impactful? I'm doubtful but not confident.
@JamesGrugett Can you add an option for the AI-Assisted Creation? I've been testing to see what NHL markets it makes. From very specific to literally just "NHL," this tool is the best change I've seen come to Manifold.
@JamesGrugett I assume that also encompasses the many changes made in preparation for sweepstakes? What if hypothetically sweepstakes never actually happens but the changes still end up being the most impactful thing?
@jack Hmm, that's a great question. I think it depends on the exact change, but if it were, for example, fees, then I would say that fees should win as a separate answer.
So, I would lean toward not choosing sweepstakes if we don't actually use sweepstakes.
@JamesGrugett that makes sense. Next question is whether we are talking about positive impacts only or biggest impact in either direction lol
Please can I add "version 2 of the big pivot, with bugs fixed"? I'm claiming THAT will be even more impactful since that's when the pivot really takes off
Obviously this is satire to show that adding options which are not actually specified messes things up since they duplicate Other and also undercut otherwise prescient guesses but don't help the info market @JamesGrugett
@Ernie Traditionally if they rework a feature after a poor initial roll out, they still resolve markets about that feature YES. I've lost a few bets that way.
I don't understand why people are angry about James implementing my suggestion. I want to be able to bet on the success of the upcoming pivot separately from the success of upcoming features that haven't even been conceived of yet. Now that the existence of an upcoming pivot has been officially announced, why continue lumping it in with Other?
@MichaelWheatley When you proposed the option i thought it was a good idea, and still think it was worth proposing tbc, but imo the case against it is:
Ppl were expecting this market to predict specific features, per the title, and now it isn't, since "the upcoming pivot" is probably better seen as an announcement of some upcoming as-yet-unknown feature(s), than a specific feature in the sense of the other existing options.
A possibly better alternative might have been to create a derivative market that asks "will a feature developed for the upcoming pivot be the most impactful feature of 2024 according to James?". Then, people who want to bet on that can, and this market keeps its more "specific" predicting, with Other as an option if you think the specific most impactful feature hasn't been proposed yet.
The disadvantage of that alternative is that it would have meant splitting the predicting into two markets, and means the staff can't bet as much as they might want to (ie, if the feature is a market option but they can't reveal it yet, they wouldn't want to buy Other, but if it isn't a current market option, they would want to buy Other).
that's my rationale for thinking it was probably a mistake in retrospect, even though the idea wasn't bad and James isn't deserving of anyone's anger
@Bayesian I mean trivially he should have to announce the feature. Otherwise before the pivot announcement I'd have been legally allowed to make an entry "the best thing James and the eng team has ever made" as my entry with fairly good chances to win.
But even then, why is the market closed. I dont think the pivot autowins. Perhaps he closed it because they're just going to deprecate the market concept itself? or we'll be interfacing with LLMs and AI to do everything, rather than clicking/typing. haha
Legal team is arriving! We are going to lawyer this out.
In response to your query regarding the legal implications of feature announcement and market closure, it is essential to address several pertinent considerations:
Announcement Requirement: The assertion that a feature announcement should have been made prior to the pivot announcement raises questions regarding transparency and fairness within the market ecosystem. In the absence of an explicit requirement mandating feature announcements, the determination of legal obligations largely depends on the terms of service or contractual agreements governing participation in the market. It is advisable to review any relevant documentation to ascertain the existence of such obligations.
Fair Competition: The scenario described, wherein an individual could potentially submit an entry leveraging undisclosed features for competitive advantage, underscores the importance of ensuring fair competition within the market. Legal principles governing fair competition, including but not limited to those prohibiting deceptive trade practices, may be implicated in such circumstances. Any decision to withhold feature announcements should be carefully evaluated to mitigate the risk of breaching legal standards.
Market Closure and Business Strategy: The closure of the market raises questions regarding the underlying rationale and implications for participants. Speculation regarding potential reasons for closure, including the possibility of deprecating the market concept or transitioning to alternative methods of interaction such as leveraging Language Models (LLMs) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), underscores the importance of considering the broader business strategy and its legal ramifications. It is advisable to consult legal counsel to assess the legal implications of any strategic decisions impacting market operations.
In conclusion, while the absence of a formal requirement to announce features prior to the pivot announcement may not inherently constitute a legal violation, it is crucial to evaluate the situation within the broader context of legal obligations, fair competition principles, and business strategy considerations.
Should you require further analysis or assistance in navigating these legal complexities, please do not hesitate to reach out.
I think this entire previously interesting market was undermined by the Upcoming Pivot addition. I understand wanting to encourage excited speculation about your business plan, but now it's all about a "mysterious thirty-forth thing" instead of discrete, specific features we can have open discussions about.
@Panfilo Sorry, on reflection I don't think it makes much sense to add the pivot as an answer before it is revealed. It would make more sense in an independent multi market, but not this one.
@Joshua Ah, sure. I've closed the market.
I'll open it back up once the Upcoming pivot is revealed. Hopefully, that is soon.
@Panfilo I don't see how betting on "Mysterious Pivot" is conceptually any more difficult than betting on "Other" which we'd been doing perfectly fine a day ago.
@MichaelWheatley Well you did just find out that 110+ of the people in this market were wasting their time vs. inside traders, but like I said below I don’t want to have that overlapping argument here. The main issue with the pivot is it’s a secret, so now ONLY the inside traders can use/discuss this huge market effectively, which is quite silly and disappointing to me. Closing it for now makes sense I guess.
@Panfilo If you bet on a market about Manifold's business decisions, you are taking on a risk of trading against people with insider knowledge. That's the way every market like this has always worked.