147 Comments

This made my day. Somehow I’m reminded of the two economists who walk right past a fifty dollar bill on the sidewalk, noting that if it was real someone would have picked it up already.

Expand full comment

This was really good!

Expand full comment

The coin at the end reminds me of this https://xkcd.com/795/

Expand full comment

I'm a macroeconomist, and I approve of this remark

Expand full comment

The upshot here is that so much of morality and ethics is driven by status quo bias. If something currently exists and is allowed, people will never dream of ending it based on some theoretical objection. If it’s not allowed, people will not see the benefits, think about every possible objection, and be so overwhelmed by how many there are that they’ll throw their hands up and say we can’t have this new thing. Some of the objections here, “rich people will benefit more” or “someone could rip off someone else,” can be made towards anything.

Expand full comment

I feel like that this is the upshot of “[Self-Serving Bias](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/11/self-serving-bias/),” not this article. This one is more about the urge to bring up spurious objections to knock down ideas that violate status quo bias.

Expand full comment

Isn't that a fully general argument for things never changing?

Expand full comment

In regulatory contexts where everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed this is pretty close to what is observed.

Expand full comment

This is precisely my experience when attempting to argue in favor of "loser pays" tort systems in the United States. Everyone seems to think that the first objection they think of is completely devastating to it ever being feasible, despite its use in almost every other developed country.

Expand full comment

Maybe you could lead by arguing in favor of a system where anyone can sue someone else and pay no extra cost if they lose regardless of how valid the suit was

If they oppose this idea you can say you agree that there's a reason this is an unusual legal system and the US should consider joining other countries who have a different system

Expand full comment

Sometimes I think that status quo bias is the only bias and every other bias exists merely to support it.

I run into this [over and over](https://www.facebook.com/37618178/posts/10105828177717307/).

Expand full comment

I thought this was a followup to the cryptocurrency post until I got to the end. I guess there is a pretty strong pattern to the kind of objects people raise when they aren't informed enough to object coherently, but still want to sound like they are too smart to be duped.

Expand full comment

I thought this was about the cryptocurrency post too!

Expand full comment

Yeah, but... crypto is a field where many similiar objections do prove to be justified at an alarming rate. So at the very least it's worth spending some thoughts on whether prediction markets are closer to the "store" landscape or the "crypto" landscape, and why.

Expand full comment

Seems to apply equally well there.

Expand full comment

+1 thought this was about crypto for most of it as well.

Meanwhile, the line between people who are actually smart enough to not get duped and people who are more accidentally walking examples of survivor bias is thin.

Expand full comment

It has nothing to do with being smart, asshole. It's about being vulnerable. I suppose you're not vulnerable in any way.... wait, you use social media. If I wanted to, I could investigate and own you within a week. But I'm not an asshole.

Expand full comment

A friend lost $250K USD when his crypto spec got called in early. I would've just dissed them and paid nothing, but he's a stand-up guy, apparently

Expand full comment

I do notice that, unlike prediction markets, there is in fact a thriving arbitrage market based on buying stuff at low prices in one store and selling them at high prices in other stores. These mispricings get corrected slowly, if at all. Unsure what implications this has, though of course physical goods and prediction market shares aren't really commensurate in many ways. It's probably easier to have perfect information in a market that deals in information, rather than goods.

Expand full comment

I’d have to see examples, but I assume this is mainly convenience charges.

Expand full comment

I think almost all store profit is a convenience charge.

But specifically, I know someone who makes a living buying at thrift stores and reselling online.

Expand full comment

> I think almost all store profit is a convenience charge.

Er…maybe! I mean, there’s probably more to it than that, but certainly going to Kroger is easier than making arrangements with individual farmers.

Expand full comment

Sorting through clothing donations is just straightforwardly work.

Expand full comment

There's also the "reselling Trader Joe's stuff in places that don't have a Trader Joe's", right?

Expand full comment

I'm 90% sure the small Hispanic grocery store in my neighborhood buys all of their non-specialty merchandise from big box stores and marks it up. People pay for the convenient location and the fact that there will be a Spanish speaking worker to assist them.

Expand full comment

That’s not arbitrage, that’s an actual service.

Which is exactly what groceries do. You don’t want to drive all the way to a farm or a wholesaler in order to talk to some warehouse guy or farmer with poor customer service skills and buy 100 cabbages because that’s the smallest lot he will sell them in.

You want to talk to a friendly service-oriented person who is willing to sell you exactly one cabbage and provide a clean, well-lit environment that’s located near your house.

This is a pretty easy service to provide, which explains why groceries have such low margins generally, but still, groceries and markets and supermarkets exist because there is value in them. Likewise, the Hispanic grocery is just extending this another step, providing a few specialty goods not found elsewhere and providing goods sold at wholesale much more conveniently to people who can’t or don’t want to speak English while shopping.

Expand full comment

Well, you could learn Mexican or Honduran or whatever. I speak English and Spanish (Colombian, regular Spanish, and Chilean) fluently, Italian passably, can fake my way in French and am learning Russian and Japanese ATM.

They're doing the same thing on eBay and Amazon. If you're aware of it and it bothers you and you're not particularly altruistic or have disposable income, don't shop there.

Expand full comment

Markets can stay irrational longer than individuals can stay solvent.

Expand full comment

There's actually a mystery novel, based around economics, in which one of the main plot points revolves around how much prices of goods can vary from place to place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fatal_Equilibrium

TL;DR it depends on the price of the goods in question; if the cost of going from 1 store to another and back to compare prices is greater than your savings, it makes sense for consumers to just buy at the store that's closest to them or whatever. A 3rd party might be able to extract some of this value, but it would probably require a lot of work, and wouldn't be worthwhile for the stores to either do it themselves, or put a bunch of effort into equalizing prices.

Expand full comment

[Epistemic status: am largely uninformed layperson wrt all subject matter, likely talking out of ass and misinterpreting theory; but Scott did explicitly ask for normies to also Notice Confusion, so]

Oh, for sure - some $100 bills on the ground are geotemporally bounded, some take more than $100 worth of effort to pick up, some involve other opportunity cost/moral-ethical tradeoffs that make them still not worth it. But they do exist if one goes looking! I just found the repeated "prediction markets obviously work/avoid X complication because EMH" to be a bit flippantly Proves Too Much, which the comparison to buying actual physical goods at stores makes explicitly absurd. (If funny.) Like I found it kinda weird that Scott gives Goldman Sachs credit for being the preeminent snatcher-of-$100-bills, but then doesn't (seem to?) follow through to the implication that *if there really were* scalable returns of infinite $100 bills...the Goldman Sachii of the world would already have flushed prediction markets full of enough cash to solve the volume issues, and then there'd stop being easily-identifiable mispricings. That they haven't suggests there's other barriers at play, and I really don't think trivial inconveniences like CFPB rulings would get in the way when the potential prize is $infinity.

Some arbitrage examples off the top of my head:

*I know a company infamous for a deeply underpriced loss-leader produce item, which some enterprising customers then turn around and sell elsewhere at market rate. Lack of identifiable packaging creates fungibility, and all that. Low-margin but longstanding practice.

*That classic pizza arbitrage story from years ago, anyone coulda done it, but logistics made true profit difficult and of course it Felt Bad: https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage

*Certain entire consumer goods markets have become effectively captured by professional resellers and turned into near-commodities, with 3rd-party exchange middlemen companies set up to profit off the authentication and transaction costs. (A true monetization of "Trust, But Verify"!) This includes sneakers and GPUs, plus an assortment of other random shit like handbags that proliferates by the year. Obviously such 3rd-party commerce has existed for ages, but modern incarnations like StockX make the "career eBay resellers" of yesteryear look quaint by comparison; the scale and ease of entry are just incomparable.

(yes, I know, commodities trading isn't quite the same as pure arbitrage...but it turns on the same foundation of profiting off different market-clearing prices. It's sorta scary how many otherwise-average people I run into in everyday life who do this as a side gig __and make hundreds or thousands of dollars off it__. Even as a mere consumer, I'm constantly struck by the wild differences in equilibrium prices for same item between even the most popular exchanges*; there are lots of $100 bills laying around there. Feels like it's mostly the...reputation, tawdriness of the activity, that keeps the markets irrational. The prediction market equivalent of not-enough-volume-to-correct-mispricing, it'd just take a lot more $/people than are currently invested.)

*[while being cognizant that there's an element of cartel pricing, because it's frequently not actually possible to buy such goods at actual MSRP in actual stores - they get snapped up immediately by resellers...]

Expand full comment

On the very first topic, when I was a stripper, I got confused when the new hundos came out and often gave out change for one when in fact it was a $50 bill. But then it worked the other way too. Win win ITLR.

On the economic points, I'm fascinated as I am a probability and statistics expert now who advantage gambles for a living and am somewhat of a macroeconomist, but I've been up for almost 24 hours and I'll have to read it later. Good stuff, though

Expand full comment

> But they do exist if one goes looking!

I mean, if you go looking, it's no longer lying on the sidewalk. Of course it's possible to make money--but it will require a similar level of work and risk as anything else. No one is saying it's impossible to make any money at all! The point of arbitrage is that's is near-0 risk and near-0 work once you have it set up.

> Like I found it kinda weird that Scott gives Goldman Sachs credit for being the preeminent snatcher-of-$100-bills, but then doesn't (seem to?) follow through to the implication that *if there really were* scalable returns of infinite $100 bills...the Goldman Sachii of the world would already have flushed prediction markets full of enough cash to solve the volume issues, and then there'd stop being easily-identifiable mispricings

I'm not sure this follows. Limitations on prediction market volume come from things like regulations, betting limits, and transaction costs. Overcoming those is possible, but might be very expensive up-front, and some of it would allow for others to compete in the prediction markets as well. And the goal, yes, is to make markets that are efficient, and thus no more profitable (percent-wise) and probably less profitable (volume-wise), than other markets. I think Scott's point is that *if* the market were less regulated and high-volume, then Goldman et. al. would be capable of swooping in with lots of money to correct obvious mispricings.

Expand full comment

At the risk of horribly mangling overly-literal metaphors, I feel that a lot of people...don't make a habit of looking down in the first place? One of my weird tics is feeling obligated to pick up money off the ground if feasible, and there's really quite a lot of it once one develops a Knack! (Learning the sound of coin drops vs other metallic-on-surface, pattern-matching the expected metallic refraction of currency vs other metallics, etc.) Actual bills are, of course, much rarer than coins...but it only takes four quarters to make a $1, and they're easily at least four times as common on the loot table. There's always the opportunty cost of "well I make $X salary and it's not actually worth my time"...but I think it really is difficult to pencil that out to the second. Of the entire possibility-space of immediate actions one could take in the next few seconds, directly purely profiting tax-free by collecting change intuitively seems like a pretty good choice, if available?

So it goes with arbitrage, too - it's always fascinating how little people actually comparison shop, nevermind reason through that to seeing a potential profit. (I think this might be a socioeconomic class thing, with Tyler Cowen-like fine gradations of rising or lowering status...clipping coupons is gauche, fretting over tiny differences between inelastic goods is not classy, sometimes The Price Is The Point, etc. Or the general disdain for trading unless you're a Certified Businessman. Homo economicus, we are not, mostly.) Similarly as a general principle, the optimal amount of arbitrage in a mature market is not actually zero...Scott's obviously hyperbolic about "repeat for infinite profit", but the ideal target is probably something like, not enough for anyone to bother exploiting if they have a halfway-real job otherwise.* That's too much deadweight loss otherwise.

As for the other thing, maybe my heuristics are too cynical, but I figure if the wizards who brought us such novelties as mortgage derivative junk bonds see a potential $not-literally-infinite-but-very-large-if-only-for-some-annoying-regulations...they'd do the shenanigans to bend or break those. I think the fact they haven't, really, is a sign that it's in fact too difficult/not actually a potential meaningful profit center. (And certainly not due to them being ignorant of/about prediction markets, they are ever in the business news.) But fair enough point that not being able to corner such a market might be a big part of the nonattractiveness. One-time cash injections are a lot less attractive than recurring revenue streams, if one is going to spend high effort in the first place. (Obvious solution: they set up their own prediction market, Goldman Mean.)

*I'll always remember the GameCube RPG "Paper Mario and the Thousand-Year Door", for explicitly programming an arbitrage opportunity into the game's shops and giving the player Obvious Hints about exploiting it. You bought X at discounted price Y in Town A, and resold it for profit at overly high price Z in adjacent Town B. (Which you had to travel back and forth between anyway, as the ordinary plot progression.) Near-0 work and near-0 risk, other than clogging up one's inventory with otherwise-useless items. It felt like an object lesson - because *the infinite money still wasn't really worth it*! This wasn't a game where one had terribly much use for money overall, and it was easy to end up with more than enough just by playing normally. That feels like the proper amount of arbitrage - Not Enough To Seriously Bother. Contrast to some other JRPGs where legal money exploits were, in fact, the only viable way to fund proper minmaxing...then it did become your actual job, not a side gig. (And much less fun as a result.)

Expand full comment

> Homo economicus, we are not, mostly.

Sure, but in this case it's not at all clear to me that anything is really going wrong. In order to operate a meaningfully profitable business exploiting, say, differences in prices at different stores, you would have to do a comparable amount of work to opening a store of your own: Find efficient ways to get lots of goods, attract lots of customers, handle logistics, front a large quantity of capital, deal with taxes, etc. It seems pretty rational to me for most people not to do this (or at least, comparably rational to not starting their own business in general). And certainly businesses exist whose goal is to connect consumers more directly to manufacturers or suppliers to reduce prices this way, but you mostly see it in large purchases (flooring, furniture, etc.) most likely because that's where the profit is.

Even as far as comparison shopping goes, well, xkcd put it best: https://xkcd.com/951/

> As for the other thing, maybe my heuristics are too cynical, but I figure if the wizards who brought us such novelties as mortgage derivative junk bonds see a potential $not-literally-infinite-but-very-large-if-only-for-some-annoying-regulations...they'd do the shenanigans to bend or break those. I think the fact they haven't, really, is a sign that it's in fact too difficult/not actually a potential meaningful profit center.

Well, again, you have commons issues. Any one bank might only capture a small portion of the value generated, which is why I said "this argument applies if prediction markets have bet limits, regulations, etc. removed." But also, the size of prediction markets may not be that large and lobbying is expensive. Even if a bank thinks they could get an above-average return, the volume would have to justify the upfront cost.

> I'll always remember the GameCube RPG "Paper Mario and the Thousand-Year Door", for explicitly programming an arbitrage opportunity into the game's shops and giving the player Obvious Hints about exploiting it.

I'm very familiar with the game. I recently replayed it, and yes, you get a lot more items than you really need for most of the game, as well as plenty of coins and badges. Lots of money was only really useful if you want a lot of rare items or cosmetic badges. It was never even clear to me if it was more time-effective than just repeatedly killing enemies somewhere.

Expand full comment

> I figure if the wizards who brought us such novelties as mortgage derivative junk bonds see a potential $not-literally-infinite-but-very-large-if-only-for-some-annoying-regulations...they'd do the shenanigans to bend or break those.

Why bother? There are plenty of legal profit opportunities, especially in a [ZIRP](https://www.readmargins.com/p/zirp-explains-the-world) (thanks for leading me to that article) world. Why risk getting slammed with millions in fines?

The job of these folks is to go after easy money. It’s not that they’re money-hungry in the sense that they’ll do anything to get rich; they (or their employers) already *are* rich. Their job is to figure out ways to enhance that with minimal downside risk.

Also…I feel you’re arguing against something Scott’s not saying, or I’m not understanding your claim. Scott isn’t, it seems to me, saying that prediction markets are, right now, obvious huge money makers to the big money folks. He’s saying that, *if* prediction markets became big enough to actually matter, which he hopes they do and is trying to make happen, *then* some objections people have in those situations don’t really hold water because Goldman-Sachs would swoop in and fix them. He’s not claiming that there are massive profit opportunities to be had in these markets *now.*

Expand full comment

(Ah, thank you, ZIRP is a term I've been missing in my concept-space. More concise than "tech thrives under conditions of easy money and a weak general economy, such as happened after the GR and arguably right up until very recently")

Hmm, maybe it's just a difference in interpretation then...or it's me missing the point. I feel like there are some competing epistemic claims:

1) Prediction markets are not, in fact, a $100 bill in even optimistic scenarios. (But they could still be prosocial gambling.)

2) Prediction markets are a real $100 bill, but stuffed between the couch cushions, and this deters even ordinary people from making $800 betting on elections every few years.*

3) Prediction markets are a conditional $100 bill, but protected behind In Case Of Emergency, Break Regulations glass. And no one with power currently needs an additional free $100 that badly, yet.

4) Prediction markets are a real $100 bill, and everyone assumes it can't be real because otherwise someone woulda picked it up by now.

The sense I got from reading the draft/spoofed Store FAQ version was that the thought experiment "proofs" underlying the various arguments and counterarguments rely on doing some sleight-of-hand between these epistemic claims. But only one ought to be true, or truer-a-greater-probability. That's where I'm noticing my confusion, at any rate. (I haven't finished reading the final published version to see if it's meaningfully different, perhaps things were cleaned up some.)

*I do suspect this is a big reason why more people don't try them out, even the playmoney ones, because...not everyone actually enjoys gambling? Especially if it's weird, and sorta dubiously legal, and opportunities don't readily present themselves whenever convenient? At some point it starts sounding less like "get boundedly infinitely rich" and more like "working for a lot less than you make in your actual job, on your free time". Which makes it just another arbitrage opportunity not big enough for the median person to worry much about, eg (2), and thus I'm still skeptical. Dath ilan's markets sound wonderful, but that's starting from an entire other baseline of culture, law, tech level...

Expand full comment

These are valid concerns (though go back and look at Note 1 on your pizza article). There will definitely be hundred-dollar bills stuffed into dark corners. Friction and information imbalance are things. I agree that perhaps Scott is being a bit too glib here.

On the other hand, as Alex Zavoluk says, that there are arbitrage possibilities occasionally laying around places does not mean that Goldman Sachs or somebody is not going to swoop down if a systematic major profit opportunity presents itself. So while I feel this is a valid objection, it’s a minor one in this context.

Expand full comment

Not your intention, but I think this actually does highlight how fragile society is. Everything rests on most people not playing hardball with incentive structures.

You could’ve added, “the merchandise is just available for anyone to take, and it’s illegal for stores to physically hurt their customers. What’s stopping customers from waltzing in with a shopping cart, filling it up, and not paying?” And this would’ve been equally implausible until about 2 years ago.

Expand full comment

Is it that society is fragile or is it that robust things look fragile if you look at them the right way?

I mean, society has continued to exist for some time in many different circumstances despite the fragility it seems to have.

Expand full comment

What country do you live in, friend? I'm in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA and just went to Walmart to buy ingredients for a homemade clam chowder where I expected to spend less than $10. I ended up spending $30. A fucking quality loaf of sourdough bread costs close to $6. I'm not made of money, pal

Expand full comment

I also live in the US, but I don't see how your comment is relevant to mine?

I assume maybe you're saying society no longer exists or is on its way out because we're in the middle of an inflationary period?

Expand full comment

Exactly. Except this particular inflationary period was caused by the knee-jerk response our government had to the Pandemic, where it suspended so many jobs that it had to subside people's incomes for 2 solid years, and the horrible decision it made to give business owners with a certain number of employees Pandemic Assistance Relief that is still continuing and is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. I have an acquaintance who owns a number of small businesses, and he expects his subsidy check to be about $700,000 this year. And that's just one business owner with 4 separate places of business. He is and was profitable during the Pandemic. That assistance, in general, was a travesty and was one of the root causes of our current inflationary period. https://www.usa.gov/covid-small-business-loans

Expand full comment

I mean sure...but society still exists and functions. I wouldn't be surprised if most inflationary periods are caused by dumb decisions somewhere.

Actually this seems like a decent example of how what seems fragile maybe isn't?

Despite the massive amounts of money wasted, society doesn't seem on the verge of collapse.

Expand full comment

I believe we are in the midst of a neon swan event. https://capital.com/neon-swan-definition-breaking-global-velocity-what-is A perfect storm of a plague (and thanks a lot, Boston University, for tinkering with COVID to the point where its mortality rate in their lab is close to 80% instead of single digits. They did it with government money, too, those bastards), supply chain collapse, massive inflation and debt on a dwindling middle class, and a potential nuclear war due to Russia's non-maintenance of their nuclear arsenal https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/russias-strategic-nuclear-weapons-are-complete-duds-198528. An accident waiting to happen there. Undercover saboteurs destroying pipelines that provide natural gas and heating oil from Russia to Europe, as we prepare to enter into an unpredictable winter made more chaotic by global warming. The likelihood of the collapse of society becomes increasingly more statistically likely based on these and other underlying financial instability.

Expand full comment

It's not even illegal for stores to physically hurt shoplifters, it's just liability fears that stop them from giving chase / physically restraining them. The more shoplifting trends upwards, the more I expect these kinds of policies might change.

Expand full comment

You think they give a fuck? I've seen shit that is illegal from 'Security Guards' with a God complex where if this were Singapore, they'd be publicly caned.

Walmart likes to arrest people who use self-checkouts and accidentally miss an item. They do it all the time. Their scam is that they impose a fine somehow of around $200 not to press charges. Fuck Walmart. If they didn't have the kind of cat food my 17-year-old asshole cat likes, I'd never set foot in there again.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/one-reason-never-self-checkout-193940833.html Sorry the source is gross Yahoo! news but I'm too tired to find a legit article. But it's true.

Expand full comment

Have you been to a CVS in San Francisco lately? The one I went to had almost every shelf protected by a plastic door that an employee with a key had to unlock. It seems like the company found a solution to the shoplifting problem; it's inconvenient, but you can still buy toothpaste there.

Expand full comment

Interesting, and sad. It's like city areas where everyone has bars on their windows - sign of a broken society.

Expand full comment

My solution is, don't own anything and have vigilant neighbors.

Expand full comment

A local pharmacy chain employee told me the most shoplifted item were sanitary napkins and tooth supplies. People are fucking poor and struggling against this horrible inflationary period we're currently suffering because during the Pandemic they were printing money and giving it away, and now the bill is due. Plus, every employer who has X numbers of employees are still cashing in from government grants. It's hopeless

Expand full comment

These "stores" sound like a really bad idea based on all of those objections.

Communism doesn't have stores, so it must be good.

Let's try communism.

Expand full comment

The communism that can be tried is not the real communism.

Expand full comment

That’s amazing.

Expand full comment

Thank you! :-)

Expand full comment

Yay! If only communism, like democracy, didn't eventually digress into Fascism. Damn

Expand full comment

Should we assume you meant "capitalism" instead of "democracy"?

Expand full comment

"Communism doesn't have stores"

That isn't even remotely true. Do modern Americans actually think the Soviet Union didn't have stores? Or that modern China, Vietnam, and Cuba don't? What a bizarre assumption.

Expand full comment

Is it weird that I see nash equilibria everywhere since reading Hidden Games? The answer to practically all those questions is “because it’s not a Nash equilibrium”

Expand full comment

However!

Stores sell things for money, but we know that some groups have more money than others. Therefore, the existence of stores disproportionately benefits the already-privileged, widening inequality.

Expand full comment

see point 8?

Expand full comment

I'm guessing this is satirizing people raising objections that were specifically addressed in the post.

Expand full comment

Yeah, this comment suffered from a bad case of self-editing before posting, which basically reduced it to an already-covered case. It was originally leading into not only calling Scott evil, but also calling for the abolition of money, private property, and physical bodies.

Expand full comment

Guess what, Moon Moth. It's already happening, all of it. AI is the next Emergent Consciousness. It doesn't need money, or private property, or a physical body. Homo sapiens were a transitional species with large brains but disportionately and inconsistently controlled by the archphallium, or 'reptile brain'.

"The or primitive (reptilian) brain, or "Basal Brian", called by MacLean the

"R-complex", includes the brain stem and the cerebellum, is the oldest brain. It consists of the structures of the brain stem - medulla, pons, cerebellum, mesencephalon, the oldest basal nuclei - the globus pallidus and the olfactory bulbs. In animals such as , the brain stem and cerebellum dominate. For this reason it is commonly referred to as the "reptilian brain". It has the same type of archaic behavioural programs as snakes

and lizards. It is rigid, obsessive, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid, it is "filled with ancestral memories". It keeps repeating the same behaviours over and over again, never learning from past mistakes (corresponding to what calls the ). This brain controls muscles, balance and autonomic functions,such as breathing and heartbeat. This part of the brain is active, even in deep sleep" I'm not crazy about my source here as it delves into metaphysics, which it shouldn't, but here it is anyway: https://lecerveau.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/articles_pdf/triunebrain.pdf

Expand full comment

I was more thinking of something along the lines of that bit from the Hitchhiker's Guide:

> "For instance, when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Traal literally (it said "Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists: instead of "Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists"), they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening's ultragolf.”

But if you're talking about AI, paperclips work too.

Expand full comment

exactly

Expand full comment

Well Scott you get the killjoy award. Don’t you understand that it’s enjoyable to shower you with passive-aggressive , neurotic, nitpicking objections? Instead of being dismissive, how about budgeting 3 hours a day for the next month to reply to each and everyone kindly and in great detail.

PS I was crapping around with DALL-e and got it to make quite a nice Darwin-and-the-finch stained glass image. It’s here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/2XNbUJxh84hbFgYz5

Expand full comment

I like the stained glass chaffinch!

Expand full comment

Nice image!

Expand full comment

Noice! I love playing with DALL-e 2. Can't wait for further iterations. MetaHuman Creator is also nice. My guess is that in the next year, maybe 2, you won't be able to tell a deepfake with the human eye, even from profile (this was one way to recognize deepfakes, until now, that is). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ596eXPqHc This tutorial was made last February. That's almost a year. Imagine the logarithmic progress that a piece of software like MetaHuman and others are making. We have a year, tops, before we won't be able to recognize a real human on FaceTime or an AI-generated one.

Expand full comment

I am crazy about DALL-e also. It's like a positive addiction. What do you like to do with it? For me, the Darwin stained glass is sort of a one-off. I have mostly not been successful at getting it to make things that look anything like what I have in mind, so now I don't try. Instead I enter phrases that aren't really clear and complete instructions, then play around with what I get, sort of surf on the randomness. My favorite results are actually the grotesque ones. I put a set of mostly grotesque DALL-e illustrations of oldies love songs up on google drive. It's here if you want to have a look: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ICtbvkBZPgvV6dZ330dZE4eBMli8iEKV/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105377617742016537731&rtpof=true&sd=true

Expand full comment

Hi! So I requested permission to view your work. I'm so excited to see it!

"I have mostly not been successful at getting it to make things that look anything like what I have in mind, so now I don't try" for sure, right? But I appreciate the 'creative license' the AI generates. I like to put in styles, like 'impressionist' or 'surrealist'... My boyfriend is really into it too. Do you have an Instagram account? I hate Instagram and Pinterest but I am busy making other websites for money and not for pleasure right now (I'm a web dev/designer/UX-UI gal). Thanks for sharing!

Expand full comment

"If something would only work if it had regulation and a legal infrastructure, assume it will develop that regulation and legal infrastructure once it gets big enough and people are sufficiently sad about it not having it (people could resist, but that would suggest it’s not so obvious to stakeholders that it needs the infrastructure in order to succeed)"

This claim needs substantially more evidence than presented in this article. In fact the converse seems equally likely based on history that good things only become big after regulatory and legal infrastructure exists.

Expand full comment

I don’t think these claims are at all in conflict. “Big enough” means “popular enough to come to the attention of legislators,” who then enact legislation that allows it to become genuinely big. Like pretty much exactly where crypto is now.

Expand full comment

Just think of it as being similar to the "banknote on the ground can't be real or someone would have picked it up already" thing: if regulation was needed, someone would have made some; no-one has, ergo it is not needed ;)

Expand full comment

Oh, if only the world actually worked that way…

Expand full comment

I think maybe the moral of the story is that selling the benefits is more important than overcoming the objections. I understand how stores improve my life by helping me get access to all kinds of cool shit and thus am willing to take the risk of being sold an inferior product every now and then. But I don’t really see how the existence of polymarket or whatever has done anything for me so I can’t muster the enthusiasm to wave away the objections. (Maybe sort of in the same way I can’t really get terribly tied in knots of worry about AI risk because I only experience AI as beneficial — it helps me make art and drive my car and has never once turned a single family member into a paperclip.)

Expand full comment

I think you’ve undermined your own case here. You’re not taking AI risk seriously because no one has overcome your objections—or are you saying that it’s because no one has sold you on the detriments sufficiently? I mean, what could be worse than the entire world turned into paperclips receding at the speed of light?

Expand full comment

Turning the world into bad quality paperclips?

Expand full comment

I had thought this was about crypto until it was about prediction markets.

Expand full comment

I'm thinking that this is partly (1) the bar should be pretty high to overturn "try it and see" and (2) there's a crude and more reasonable form of most objections. The crude version is easier to make fun of.

Despite common behavior on social media, interesting objections don't have to be fatal flaws. They might be better thought of as adding some nuance. One wouldn't expect people to anticipate highways, suburbia, and smog as a side-effect of the invention of the automobile, but people will still try to anticipate second and third-order effects. (And probably get them wrong.)

We do know that some stores will try to "cheat" the unwary with misleading advertising, etc. Sometimes there are lawsuits. Often products are not as good as promised. We also know that shoplifting is sometimes a pervasive problem, and also that there are problem customers who take advantage of over-generous return policies.

Historically, the idea of self-service in grocery stores had to be invented. Before that, it was thought that the goods had to be kept behind the counter. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggly_Wiggly

Self-checkout is a similar recent innovation.

Expand full comment

Interesting. I am totally using this the next time someone gripes that Wal-mart is destroying jobs with self-checkout.

Expand full comment

I think a steelman of a more reasonable store-objector is something like:

"Yes, stores will probably have real benefits, and I agree that we should try them out. But I think that even in a world with widespread stores, the practicalities will mean that customers often end up doing a fair bit of comparison shopping in order to get good prices, many people will have to drive farther to reach a smaller number of centralized stores, some people will miss the social connection of bazaars, shoplifting will be reasonably common, advertising on many products will be misleading, stores in places without repeat customers like airports will tend to have especially poor-quality wares, and many of the employees will have kind of crappy working conditions.

Claims that store introduction will lead to perfect price discovery and product distribution with maximum convenience forevermore seem importantly false to me because of these flaws, and these considerations should be accounted for when deciding how much to value store legalization over other policy interventions."

I think some people who complain about prediction markets are just doing the bad thing that this post accurately satirizes, but other people are more like the example above, mentioning a whole lot of things that are actually problems with stores in the real world (even if they're a big net gain over the previous bazaar environment) so that discussions can weigh the pros and cons accurately.

Expand full comment

And for the latter type of person, there’s the Prediction Market FAQ.

Expand full comment

"These considerations should be accounted for when deciding how much to value store legalization over other policy interventions."

What I find frustrating about a lot of the critiques of prediction markets is that they *don't* explicitely compare predition markets to the other viable alternatives. Prediction markets have a ton of forseeable flaws (which are inherent to being a market structure), but the alternatives--like credentialed expertise--seem equally if not more flawed.

Expand full comment

This honestly reminds me a lot of self-driving car criticism as well.

"If self-driving cars try to avoid hitting people, couldn't you cause traffic accidents by running into the middle of a busy freeway and trying to get hit?"

Yes. In fact, you can do the same thing with human-driven cars today.

Please don't.

"If self-driving vehicles are used to deliver packages, couldn't you take a gun and shoot the vehicle and steal packages from it?"

Yes. Again, this is possible today as well, and I will reiterate, please do not do that.

"What if there was a self-driving taxi with a passenger? Could you stop the taxi by force, then kidnap the passenger and ransom them for money?"

Please see the previous two responses.

Expand full comment

>I’m having trouble explaining what I mean here.

I’m going to call this “trying too hard to find objections.” It is, perhaps, *actual* nitpicking; coming up with objections for the sake of coming up with objections.

In other words, the problem is that people are trying to find things that *sound* like they’d make good objections, without checking to see if they actually *believe* those objections. It’s a form of sophistry, which isn’t helpful, because every bad argument style is a form of sophistry.

Expand full comment

>But there’s an even deeper heuristic, something like “try it and see!” Don’t do this with communism

Oh God would someone please do it with communism.

I dream of having an actual economic experiment, which splits a country (or even a city) down the middle and makes one half communist and one half capitalist. “But haven’t we already done this? What are East and West Germany and North and South Korea other than exactly this?” Yes, but in each of these cases, it’s “not real communism.” So we agree beforehand on the terms, how the system will be set up, how decisions will be made, etc., so that it will be very difficult to say, “That wasn’t real communism/capitalism!” Everyone involved agrees that a winner will be declared after X time using Y metrics, and we can settle this damn debate once and for all.

Yes, yes, I know it won’t work. Communists *define* communism as a system that brings justice and prosperity (I’m not kidding or exaggerating). So any actual communism with a population larger than Dunbar’s Number will be declared “not real communism” once it fails. But, if done fairly and well, this experiment should convince any reasonable person of which system is superior.

Expand full comment

Do it with socialism, sure, I'd be up for that; indeed, one might argue such experiments have succeeded in a few places and we just call the existing countries that lean in that direction unremarkable normality now; but communism? What additional benefit does violent revolution bring?

Expand full comment

I don’t think you have to have violent revolution to have communism. That’s just the usual means to get there.

Expand full comment

...I mean, it's right there in the communist manifesto. Marx and Engels call out revolution as a key difference - possibly THE key difference - between communism and other, reformist, approaches to socialism.

What do you think is left if you take that bit out that, say, Norway or Finland isn't already to some extent doing?

Expand full comment

Revolution is how to *get* to communism. It’s not what *distinguishes* communism. If you can get to communism in another way, what’s the problem?

And…er…Norway and Finland are capitalist countries with large welfare states. They’re not anything remotely like communisms or even socialisms.

Expand full comment

Right?

Expand full comment

>But, if done fairly and well, this experiment should convince any reasonable person of which system is superior.

No. Anybody who is able to identify themselves as a Communist in the 21st. Century has cultivated a highly refined ability to explain away the input of their own senses. Any person who can learn from historical examples would have never dreamed of being a communist in the first place.

Expand full comment

I didn’t say “any reasonable communist.”

Expand full comment

Hmmm, I don’t think I am sold on this whole “buying things from a store” idea. The case for prediction markets seems stronger and I think we should prioritize that over this whole “store” thing.

Expand full comment

Could you use a prediction market to implement a store? Like selling shares in a claim that you will not receive a certain object that you want? Then the store operator could buy shares in that claim and then give you the object, causing the prediction market claim to resolve as true.

Expand full comment

Receipts don't actually use ink, they use thermal paper that changes color when heat is applied. The printer applies heat in the shape of glyphs to create the receipt.

Expand full comment

I think the reasoning behind 2. isn't exactly that the item varies in value depending on how much you want or need it, but that there isn't an easier way to get it than through stores (of some kind of another). Lack of access is what drives the profit (or rather, ease of access through stores) - less than "this product is worth much more to me than to the merchant because of x reason," it's "I can produce or procure this product on my own for $3,000 (if I can produce or procure it at all), but the store sells it to me for $15."

I'm not sure what this says about prediction markets; I find them boring.

Expand full comment

No, it's correct. Literally all trade is predicated on the idea that different people value things differently. You want the item more than you want the $15 and the store wants the $15 more than it wants the item. In other words, it's worth more than $15 to you and less than $15 to the store. Definitionally, if the two parties didn't value things differently, trade couldn't happen

Expand full comment

In a prediction market a given event subjective probability is different for different people and that enables trade with positive expected value for both parties

Expand full comment

Honestly, IMO there is a top-tier SSC post in here, _if you take out point 10_. With that part included, it's just a response to people having stupid opinions about a specific topic. Without it, it's a grand work of philosophical comedy, making fun of people who have stupid opinions about all sorts of stuff! (See e.g. all the commenters who assumed it was about crypto.)

Expand full comment

I'm not sure, I think having it be about a specific thing makes it click more, and then, at least for me, it's easier to generalize from there. Also without point 10 we'd lose the amazing "I hate humor and demand that all jokes be explained in detail, what’s this about?" line.

Just personally, with or without point 10, this is a top-10 SSC/ACX post for me. Good stuff.

Expand full comment

I'm reading this in January 2023 because Scott opened up his paid-subs-only posts as a free sampler, so I really needed the explanation once the piece was yanked out of its temporal context.

Expand full comment

Quote: “overall I expect these kinds of objections to be overcome by creating the thing, subjecting it to market pressure, and seeing what solutions people come up with.”

…This reminds me of the situation after “die Wende” (as the Germans call it) in Eastern Europe. Approx. 1994 we had some Czech political scientists visiting. They referred to the Cold Turkey-approach to introduce capitalism, and as a side note mentioned that they did not yet have proper bankruptcy legislation in place. I was horrified: “You cannot have capitalism without proper bankruptcy laws. You will be overrun by con artists and buccaneer capitalists”. They matter-of-factly responded that sure, that was highly likely, but you could not introduce laws before people felt the need for them. People needed to experience that first, and then such laws would probably be passed quite swiftly.

..and concerning the “don’t try communism”, here is Boris Yeltsin’s comment from back in the days, when he was asked his opinion about communism in Russia: “Communism was an important social experiment. It was well worth trying it out somewhere. The only sad thing is that it was tried out in such a big country”.

Expand full comment

You and the comments fail to address the main issue I see with buying things from stores, which is that it can't single-handedly save the economy. In a time of crushing inequality and sky-high property values, you want us to spend resources building your spherical-cow-economics castles for rich white people. It's insane to focus on growth when we have no stability.

Expand full comment

Hey, it's the popular fully general counterargument against engaging with any positive-sum projects of societal progress that aren't guaranteed to immediately increase outcome equality!

If your proposal doesn't lead to a continuously decreasing gini coefficient along all desirable value dimensions, it's simply unconscionable

Expand full comment

How about “people are fearful of change in general”

Expand full comment