As far as I can tell, over 0,000 are promised to charity if this
market resolves YES, and yet ‘rational’ effective altruists are causing
it to resolve NO and burn the donation bEcAuSe ExPeCtEd VaLuE. Is this
how effective altruism works now?
No it’s cool because in the comments you can see big “No” voters
promising to donate some amount of their profits to charity too or
something, according to some bizarre formula.
The only reason to make giving money to worthy causes this
complicated is to have excuses to give them less money, ideally while
taking more for yourself.
I don’t see anyone saying anything about irl dollars going somewhere
what am I missing ? AFAIK people bet on the markets primarily to win
internet money. It’s just a weird game.
The play money says it cannot be converted to real money, except in the specific case of [donating to charity](https://help.manifold.markets/manifold-charitable-donation-program), where it converts at 100:1.
Oh yeah, but the prediction markets are a zero sum game. No one gains or loses money on a market regardless of what the outcome is. For someone to win 2000M someone else has to lose 2000M. Someone would have to bet and win 10,000,000 M on a market and promise it to charity in order for what the OP posted to be true. (and the highest amount of M made by the top traders in totallity is a lot less than that afaik)
I'm not really invested in this sneer because yeah, it's basically just a weird internet game (although it is designed to validate the bad idea of prediction markets more generally), but some of those betting have no interest in "cashing out" to charity and others do, and therefore which way a bet goes can impact whether a sum of money is donated to charity.
I've played on manifold a bit. I would say that it makes prediction markets seem less valid. It is a clown fiesta (as evidenced by the OPs market). Even the all time market leader only has 5,800 (which he won a lot of in this very market). Even if they give money to charity, something tells me it would simply just be tipped down the drain for AI alignment anyway.
No it’s cool because in the comments you can see big “No” voters promising to donate some amount of their profits to charity too or something, according to some bizarre formula.
The only reason to make giving money to worthy causes this complicated is to have excuses to give them less money, ideally while taking more for yourself.
It’s just the side that wins the bet gets to decide which charity receives the money.
The actual system is more complicated, but that’s the simple explanation.
I don’t see anyone saying anything about irl dollars going somewhere what am I missing ? AFAIK people bet on the markets primarily to win internet money. It’s just a weird game.