youtube.com/shorts/BVueE...

That is what I'm suggesting yes.

Okay but I think you're missing what I'm saying, which is that if you do that approach, and then put it all together into a sequence and train on it, maybe you start to get qualitatively different behavior?

Kalshi currently gives it better odds than Manifold:

manifold.markets/JohnDavidPre...

I mean, we could presumably empirically show how much volume should factor into an estimate of accuracy by comparing market consensus to resolved outcomes over time vs. volume of the market.

Oh? I'm simply pointing out that this kind of market is going to be systematically wonky so you wouldn't expect to have 170 million in dumb money betting on it.

In general it's fairly obvious that we can no longer just take having a high quality public epistemology for granted. If we want to continue having one (and we do) it's going to have to be a public good someone is funding the infrastructure for somehow.

I think there needs to be, and it has to be very carefully formulated because people *will* attempt to use it for SLAPP, but there has to be some kind of presumption of harm when you tell blatant provable lies to a large audience of people. That there is a such thing as harm to public epistemology.

"They're giving trans kids litterboxes in schools" would also probably be defamation if it was about a specific person or school. The idea that you need a specific plaintiff who has been harmed to have standing means you can hurt people at scale with your lies risk free.

I mean, you *don't* have an absolute right to lie. People can sue you for telling provably harmful lies about them. Yet, this seems too narrow and too loosely enforced. "They're eating the cats and dogs" would be defamation if it was about a specific person.

www.pbs.org/newshour/nat...

Which is one of the things I keep coming back to wrt the first amendment. I think having absolute protection for opinions and value judgements is clearly a net positive, but should you have an absolute right to lie?

bsky.app/profile/jdp....

This has trade-offs, it seems doubtful to me that something like the Epstein files story could stay in the public consciousness so long without the democratization created by the Internet. On the other hand it also means you have fewer trustworthy sources people rely on to create shared facts.

Investigative journalism and "objectivity" were public goods that news agencies could afford on the back of oligopolistic profit margins, which go away as news trends towards being a perfect competition/pure commodity.

One version of the Internet story is it changed the market structure for news from oligarchy (each paper competes with a few other papers in the geographic region it operates in) to monopolistic competition by flattening distribution and yellow journalism became the way to differentiate yourself.

I think the profit motive poisoning previously "neutral" sources like news is a pretty big part of the story. Fox News and conservative radio isn't just propaganda, it's also deeply profitable and actively incentivized.
www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/The-Toxoplas...

Oh no! Maybe @why.bsky.team stopped running/updating it?

I found this one consistently gave me ML focused content but your mileage may vary.
bsky.app/profile/did:...