Resolves YES if anyone reports, and Robin Hanson does not contradict within 7 days, that they requested to talk to Robin Hanson about prediction markets, and got turned down.
Resolves NO if this does not happen after 10 years.
Update 2025-10-02 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - 7-day window starts after notification: The 7 days begin once Robin Hanson is notified of the report; if he does not contradict within that period, it counts.
Obvious abuse/false reports may be ignored: The creator may use discretion to disregard clearly dishonest or spammy repeated claims.
Update 2025-10-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification on what counts as "turned down": A request to talk about prediction markets that is declined because the requester primarily wants to discuss their own grand theory (rather than genuinely discuss prediction markets) does NOT count as being "turned down" for purposes of this market's resolution.
1,000
3.00What does "talk" mean in this context? Email, phone call, zoom, text, any? If he emails back (substantively, not just "hi, I'm busy") but doesn't have time for a call how does this resolve?
I asked Robin about what happened with Krantz, and Robin replied that he declined because he believes Krantz mostly wants to talk about his grand theory instead. I fed both sides into both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT-5 Thinking, and both strongly agreed that this does NOT count. I agree with them. We continue.
@ZviMowshowitz I dispute this. I have several questions for Robin Hanson. They are all about prediction markets. I am posting them publicly so an open market can verify that they are indeed about prediction markets.
1. Is a prediction market without a resolution criteria simply a decision market about what should be considered true?
In other words, if there were no cost to having money tied up in a prediction (imagine a perfect loan system) couldn't we just as easily be aligning 'decision markets for what propositional truth ought be' by using the market itself as an infinitely approximating resolution criteria (assuming there is a individual user cap to how much can be invested in each proposition)?
2. Do you see any economic value in sovereign individuals performing decisions that help align what propositional truths society ought subscribe to? Is that what you would consider the aim of futarchy?
3. Do you see prediction markets (decision markets more generally) as being valuable for incentivizing the public formalization of normative opinions?
In other words, I believe that the most important utility that comes from decision markets is the ability they create for individuals to incentivize the public declaration of their beliefs. This allows public advocates to substantively engage with the detailed opinions and justifications held by other public advocates. If we create a mechanism that allows people to pay other people to publically confirm their beliefs where they can be sited in public arguments against their position, then constructive public discourse would become orders of magnitude more effective.
4. Couldn't a particular type of prediction market (the market defined by the krantz demonstration mechanism) be used to map society's beliefs in a mechanistically interpretable and game theoretically stable way?".
5. Would the constitutional United States be a futarchy if every citizen were enabled to earn a living by adding and voting on philosophical propositions contained on it?
6. Did you know that if you only interacted with a single prediction, then there would be no need to answer any of my other correspondence?
In other words, did you know that you can have conversations through prediction markets? Would you be willing to discuss analytic philosophy with me through a prediction market mechanism? Everyone else in the world could easily participate in the conversation.
https://manifold.markets/Krantz/what-is-robin-hansons-confidence-in?r=S3JhbnR6
To clarify, this is to talk about prediction markets..
https://manifold.markets/Krantz/if-krantz-goes-on-a-proper-date-wit?r=S3JhbnR6
I've been trying to explain to Robin how constitutional decision markets can align and scale mechanistically interpretable gofai and beat machine learning to the punch by constructing a decentralized futarchy that rewards sovereign individuals to maintain it for 5 years. I've flown across the country to do so twice. We've spoken about this.
I have a bet that he will win a Nobel Prize in economics if he speaks with me about "prediction markets".
If I'm not an instantiation for this to resolve "yes", I can't imagine what would be.
@Quroe 7 days after Robin is notified it would count if he didn't reply. I will of course play it by ear if someone is obviously lying or abusing the market (e.g. claiming this over and over again).