@Joker If you want to maximize your points in expected value (and therefore maximize your points almost certainly over repeated trials, assuming statistical independence), you should predict your actual belief.

Several people have already brought up the idea of a new prediction parameter: called "certainty" or "confidence" etc. These ideas are clearly getting at a real issue: that the current scoring system favors many low-quality predictions over a few high-quality ones, for example. This incentive lowers the overall quality of predictions available to Metaculus, and points more broadly to how Metaculus is unable to distinguish between a prediction made off a first impression and one made with hours of research and estimation: both types of predictions are in...

@Reprisal It counts, but the question also has the condition “as long as they do not explicitly rescind said concession within 24 hours.”

@rakyi it's included as a part of "> Jan 1, 2100"

@ugandamaximum It’s not actually an optimization, so it’s already fixed. If he gets kicked out and you predicted 1% for one day, then you have one day at 55 points. If it doesn’t happen, then you have one day at -276 points. You are punished much more for a wrong 1% prediction (even for a single day) than the amount you gain if it is correct (for a single day). The way to maximize your points is to predict your actual belief.

@randomuser2323 I think “insurrection” is the more technically correct term, since this attempt to seize power was not backed by threat of military force or elite political power.

@Fruo Those predicting higher than 1% are not considering the types of events where human adaptability plays much of a role. The focus is more on the type of event that would destroy all macroscopic life on Earth.

@(johnnycaffeine) I don’t exactly trust Ann Coulter to do due diligence in reporting what can or can not happen as a result of strangulation. Here’s a source pointing out that “blood foam” is a possible result of strangulation: http://bmcsagar.edu.in/new_upload/STRANGULATION-.pdf Foaming at the mouth is a symptom of seizures (including when induced by drug use), which can be caused by nervous system damage via oxygen deprivation: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321756 A web search turns up no shortage of news stories where foaming at the mou...


Metaculus, being full of leftist rationalists always fails at these politicized questions, because they swallow obvious propaganda from mainstream sources.

To paraphrase Eliezer Yudkowski:

So if Kyiv doesn’t fall, that disproves your capacity to detect obvious propaganda.

*please note this is not an endorsement of EY’s dinner party conversational tactics.

— edited by JonathanShi

@EMP A 95% chance gets a brier score of 0.005. It would take 100 of those to make up for the loss incurred by a 50% prediction.

I think the most likely way this happens is if PETA launches a military coup of the federal government.


Super-intelligent AI. Why would it expend the enormous resources required to kill every human

If it attempts to convert the entire surface of the earth into computing infrastructure, killing all humans would be a natural side effect.

@jabowery ironic imo to link to a YouTube podcast that titles its episodes in alarmist style with all-caps words like “ATTACKS”, “WARNING”, and “CRAZY” while warning of the dangers of groupthink.

ironic also to condemn derision with an another heaping of derision.

But let’s allow the log score to be the ultimate judge.

@JavierSouto It appears to me that you made no real effort to understand how 538's model works. Here's some reading to get you started: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-five…

On the shy voter hypothesis: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shy-vote…

@yshemesh One solution would be to randomize the winners. For instance: each entrant gets draws in a lottery in proportion to 1 - their average Brier score. This would ensure that the strategy to maximize expected prizes is also the strategy to optimize Brier score.

@PinkGrowl I agree: there was also a lot more explicit communication about the cultural expectation to not press the button. Nonetheless, there was no reason for us as predictors to assume that this year’s event would follow the same format as past events.