An assessment of Kurzweil's predictions for 2019 made in 1999 was just posted on LessWrong.

His predictions were found to be 52% false and 15% mostly false, compared to 32% false and 14% mostly false for predictions made for 2009 in 1999. This is helpful for determining the base rate for the reference class of Kurzweil's long-term predictions.

First I estimate the likelihood of the experts winning on each of the 4 questions: 1.1: 98% (only need 19k more in last day, seems extremely likely) 1.2: 75% (number of weekly deaths only slightly down favors experts) 1.3: 80% (number of weekly deaths increased! favors experts more strongly) 1.4: 20% (expert's median seems very high, weekly deaths would have to increase for them to win which seems unlikely, and weekly deaths decreased this past week) I then calculate the likelihood of experts winning at least 3: .98 * .75 * .8 * .2 + .98 * .75 ...

@Fruo I’m not sure that prior really makes sense given the difference between continuing to be in a civil war and the start of a civil war. One that makes more sense to me is: of the ~240 years in which there wasn’t a civil war ongoing, a civil war started once. This gives a prior of 1/240=~0.4%

There are no dates on these posts so I'm not exactly sure when they were run, but there are 3 more ads described in blog posts on the first page only [here]( that were run in a newspaper required for the question. They are: * * * Assuming the articles are ordered most recent first,...

@alexrjl Why would they predict over-confidently on Metaculus, even if they did so in the surveys? The metaculus predictions have no bearing on the actual results if I understand correctly.

I predicted 20% based on… having an 80% confidence interval for the popular vote spanning approximately 3 points in each direction for Trump and Biden.

I just realized that my conversion to the 20% forecast was based on a basic math error: if Biden under-performs by 2 points, then Trump over-performs by 2 points, and this resolves positively (technically there are a few 3rd-party votes but safe to mostly ignore those).


— edited by elifland_ought

I'd like to see more predictions on the effects of social media. I am intuitively pretty sympathetic to a lot of the claims made by sources such as: * [Center for Humane Technology]( * [Tristan Harris on the 80,000 hours podcast]( * [The Social Dilemma]( * [Digital Minimalism]( But, I'm wary of the rigor of the arguments made and would be ex...
[There are currently 593,807 reported deaths]( With the current rate of ~5k deaths per day, we will end up at ~1.43M. I'm surprised that the community median is significantly below this. [Made an Elicit distribution]( to assign very little probability to <600,000, and 17% (intuitive guesstimate) probability to <1.43M as I think the number of deaths per day will rise. [I work on Elicit.]...

I used the SSA actuarial life table and adjusted the estimates slightly downward (since the Queen seems to be in fairly good health and has access to great care) to get a forecast for this. I used the percentiles from those calculations to make my forecast using Elicit. This also helped me put only 2% on her reign ending in the past (< Jun 2020), while the community has 6%.

[Disclaimer: I work on Elicit]

— edited by elifland

I concur with those below in their praise of the track record updates. I particularly like the continuous calibration plots.

As I'm always hungry for more, it would be cool to have a feature where I can (pay tachyons to? or have both people consent to) compare my track record vs. a rival forecaster's track record, on questions that we have both predicted on.

— edited by elifland_ought

@Anthony I think we should wait until the spreadsheet is updated for today (as someone who would greatly benefit from resolving at 931,698).

Predicted using an Elicit distribution based on a few intuitive beliefs regarding the current target launch date of Oct 31, 2021.

[I work on Elicit.]

It's important to note that [the re-election question]( doesn't close until 6 PM EST on Election night. Given this, I created an [Elicit distribution]( based on factorizing the question into a few parts: - (A) Will the result of an election be a large victory for Biden, a close call, or a large victory for Trump? - (B) Given the Biden large victory possibility in (A), how clear will it be by 6 PM EST election night that it wil...

@Linch thanks for the comment, made me realize I was reading the question incorrectly and predicting when a 10% reduction would happen (which I think has happened already) rather than a reduction to 10%. I wonder if others made the same mistake.

— edited by elifland

I modified @rachbach@ought's script to [make one]( which: * Starts in 2020 using [GPT-3's training compute]( as a starting point * Re-estimates doubling time starting with AlexNet in 2012 up until GPT-3 in 2020 This gives an estimate of 3.04E10, after taking log10 that's 10.48. Note that the method I used for estimating the updated doubling time is crude and I think gives an overestimate (slower than OpenAI's, meaning ...

It would be nice to have the option to receive an e-mail when the community prediction on a question you made has changed by a large amount and you haven't updated your own, rather than only receiving an e-mail when it's closing soon.

Significant mismatch between community prediction here and betting odds at… Edit: at the time of posting the community median here was approximately 500k, while EBO had >50% odds of >1M.

— edited by elifland