Must be on Manifold, caused by their feature of AI editing people's market descriptions.
The AI's clarification must be an incorrect representation of the creator's comment at the time it was made. Being incorrect in other ways does not count.
There must be at least one person who seems to have been legitimately misled by the incorrect summary.
There must be at least M$10,000 in total shares across all shareholders.
I will ignore markets and comments that seem like they were likely made specifically to manipulate this one. I will also ignore shares held by someone trying to inflate a market's value to make it qualify.
I will ignore this market itself due to the obvious paradoxical nature of trying to include it.
Only counts instances after this market's creation.
1,000@ian Let the market creator pin important threads and/or comments to the description. This is much better than the horrible AI summaries
@ian No, the real question is, what is the overall best system? Many people have given you suggestions for ones that clearly improve on both the current AI system and the former no AI system.
@IsaacKing I disagree that I've seen suggestions that 'clearly improve' on the current ai system, or the former no AI system. I've seen suggestions that maybe improve the current ai system but also require a hefty amount of technical work. Suggestions that require the creator to do something (i.e. pin a comment to the description) will end up losing most of the clarifications. The task needs to be extremely salient (i.e. the manually dismissable notifications in the notifs page) for it to maybe work.
@ian I agree it's not a trivial problem but there's just no way that the current system is ideal.
Here's another idea: What if the AI sent notifications of a suggested clarification to the creator, the creator must click "approve" or "deny" for the notification to go away, and it only shows in the market description if they approve it?
And perhaps the system is automatically turned off for anyone who has e.g. at least 100 resolved markets and at least a 4.5 star rating.
@IsaacKing I think that's one of the suggestions that might work! It's worth a shot.
I'm tempted to just do nothing or continue tweaking the prompt tho bc as the models get better, the current feature gets better.
@ian I don't understand why "this feature will get better in the future" is being presented as a justification for allowing it to be terrible right now.
@IsaacKing oh, I don't think it's terrible. I think sometimes it messes up but overall is better than the alternative of not having it.
@IsaacKing I also think that the feature has gotten better recently as I've instructed it to be really, really, really sure it's a clarification before it makes an edit. Have you had recent bad experiences?
@ian I do agree that the current system is better than a total lack, if only because it reminds market creators to update their descriptions whenever they leave a comment.
Leeches were also a better way to address some diseases than doing nothing at all; doesn't mean it we shouldn't have moved to an even better system.
@ian Nothing in the past few days, except the separate bug of the AI overwriting my own attempts to edit the description if it tries to do so at the same time as me.
@IsaacKing yeah when it tries to edit the description while I'm editing it is really annoying. Would love to fix that
@ian If I may put my finger on the scale...
How about this system:
The Market Creator comments something notable.
The AI identifies it and writes up a proposed summary.
The Market Creator is pinged with a notification to review it.
If no action is taken within 1 hour, then the AI summary is applied to the market, but with a tag saying that it was not manually approved by the Market Creator.
If it is accepted within 1 hour, then the summary is applied with a tag saying it was manually reviewed and approved by the Market Creator.
If it is reviewed and rejected within 1 hour, then no AI summary is posted. No changes are made to the description.
This hands more agency back to the Market Creator in how their market is run, but still allows for less engaged Market Creators to have an AI wingman (since it seems the consensus is that, as a pure binary, having the AI is better than no AI). Since the AI usually catches and summarizes notable comments within about 2 minutes, a 1 hour window seems like it's more than fair to assume the Market Creator is still online and meandering around the site.
[edit: spelling corrections]
@evan Still relatively minor at the moment, but it does concern me that the admins seem to see no problem with this.