Astral Codex Ten

Nate Silver

39 min read

Nate Silver

Article

Nate Silver is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 22 times across 22 issues between August 26, 2021 and June 18, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as “EG Nate Silver: Even the usually-restrained Tyler Cowen got in on it”; “Nate Silver, Tyler Cowen, and Garrett Jones come out in favor”; “you might recognize Monte Carlo techniques from Nate Silver’s election forecasts at 538”. It most often appears alongside Manifold, Polymarket, Metaculus.

Metadata

  • Category: People
  • Mention count: 22
  • Issue count: 22
  • First seen: August 26, 2021
  • Last seen: June 18, 2025

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Highlights From The Comments On Missing School
August 26, 2021 · Original source
…and everyone roasted it harder than anyone had ever roasted anything before. EG Nate Silver:
Links For December
December 30, 2021 · Original source
32: Nate Silver, Tyler Cowen, and Garrett Jones come out in favor of “the public health establishment deliberately delayed the COVID vaccine by a month so it wouldn’t make Trump look good before Election Day”. I haven't checked if it’s plausible that public health officials had political motives, but the fact is they made a deliberate decision to make the process take an extra month, and that some four-to-five-digit number of people died because of this decision. Even if we conclude they made this decision for less sinister reasons (like being over-cautious), it deserves to be scrutinized with the same rigor as other decisions that have killed this many people, like the decision to ignore intelligence warnings about 9-11.
Inline links: Nate Silver, Tyler Cowen, Garrett Jones
ACX Grants ++: The First Half
February 03, 2022 · Original source
#29: Present An Open-Source Python Library For Monte Carlo Techniques At the heart of all serious forecasting is a statistical tool known as Monte Carlo analysis. It allows you to quantify uncertainty by introducing randomness to the inputs of computational models and looking at the range of results. If you want a good example, you might recognize Monte Carlo techniques from Nate Silver’s election forecasts at 538. It's been a gold-standard throughout my career in the space industry, and I can attest to how powerful it is - I've used it to successfully send a rocket to Mars. However, there aren't any tools out there that make it easy for researchers to take their existing models and wrap a Monte Carlo around it. So, I wrote one. It's an open-source python library which I'm calling "monaco". I'm at a point in development where the basic feature set is complete and working well, and I'm looking to finish up the extended roadmap in the next few months. See the project github page for the code, examples, and a lot more info: https://github.com/scottshambaugh/monaco. I’m looking for $1000 to help me present version 1.0 of this tool to the scientific community at the 2022 SciPy Conference in Austin, TX this summer. That amount should cover conference fees, hotel, and airfare, and if you're feeling generous I could use additional funds for some external monitors and cloud compute time. My name is Scott Shambaugh, and if you’re interested in helping fund this please email me at wsshambaugh AT gmail.com. Thank you!
22
May 10, 2022 · Original source
First the proof. Suppose that there was some specific expert who consistently outperformed prediction markets. For example, suppose Nate Silver was on average better than Polymarket. After this had been happening for a while, you would catch on. And then whenever Polymarket and Nate disagreed, you could bet money on Nate’s position on Polymarket and win. The exact amount you could make would depend on how much money was on the relevant Polymarket question and how strongly Nate and Polymarket disagreed, but as Polymarket gets bigger the limit tends toward infinity.
(right now, Nate Silver is better than PredictIt. I noticed this last election and made a few thousand dollars. If PredictIt had been as big then as Polymarket was now, either I would have made a few hundred thousand dollars, or - much more likely - someone else would have been incentivized to beat me to the trade, and the market would be as accurate as Nate by the time I looked at it).
Prediction markets aren’t competing with Nate Silver or spy satellites, any more than the stock market is competing with investment banks and market analysts. Prediction markets are competing with newspapers, pundits, and government departments. They’re a source of dis-intermediated information, short-circuiting everyone who sets themselves up as authoritative intermediators. A prediction market future is one where disinformation, propaganda, and narrative construction - while not impossible - are constrained by everyone having access to the same facts, through a medium impossible for any single bad actor to influence.
22
July 12, 2022 · Original source
Or maybe it was something else that happened around the same time. On June 30, Nate Silver published his forecast Why The Republicans Are Favored To Win The House, But Not The Senate. Before that, conventional wisdom had thought Republicans were definitely favored to win the Senate (see above, PredictIt was ~75% on this). Silver said the right probability was more like 53%. If Silver’s right, even now the markets are overestimating the GOP.
Inline links: Why The Republicans Are Favored To Win The House, But Not The Senate
Prediction Market FAQ
December 20, 2022 · Original source
Suppose that over a long time scale, a prediction market was consistently worse than the best expert (let’s say Nate Silver). Then you could make money by always betting on Nate Silver’s opinion. That is, if Nate Silver said there was a 90% chance the Democrats would win, but the market said only a 30% chance, you could buy shares in “the Democrats will win” and, on average, triple your money. You won’t always win, since Nate isn’t always right, but (by our supposition) on average you would make money on each bet. Repeat until you are rich, or the mispricing has been corrected.
Inline links: Nate Silver
Moving from the second person to the third person: if prediction markets were consistently worse than Nate Silver, then after a while someone would notice. This person could make a lot of money by betting on the market based on this observation. Once they did, the market would no longer be worse than Nate Silver.
2.1: What do you mean by “once they did, the market would no longer be worse than Nate Silver”?
Links For December 2022
December 28, 2022 · Original source
37: There’s been some recent discussion of sports betting as an analogue for prediction markets - see subreddit thread here. Mike Saint-Antoine does the research and finds that sports betting markets are at least as accurate as Nate Silver’s sports predictions (not to knock Nate - they may be considering his predictions in their bets!)
Inline links: see subreddit thread here, does the research
38: Related, from Second Hand Cartography: Ann Seltzer Is Better At Election Forecasting Than Nate Silver (edit: see criticism here)
Inline links: Ann Seltzer Is Better At Election Forecasting Than Nate Silver, here
Links For August 2023
August 09, 2023 · Original source
H/T Nate Silver, who writes: “Not sure how you can look at this data, ostensibly be interested in either meritocracy or equality, and want to move away from standardized tests. It's the subjective measures that are most slanted in favor of the rich kids.” Cf. Erik Hoel. 19: From @data_depot: “In 2002, 48% of Americans said "the govt is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves." 52% said "it is run for the benefit of all people." In 2020, 84% said the govt is run by a few big interests. Only 16% said it is run for the benefit of all people.” Source seems to be here, which reveals 2002 was a local peak in trust in government; maybe because of post-9/11 unity, but even 2000 was 34%, much better than our current 16%. My first instinct is to attribute this to a rise in vulgar Marxism, in the sense of everyone (even conservatives) now being trained to think in terms of an elite class screwing over everyone else (cf my review of Manufacturing Consent). But there was a previous low of 19% in 1994, which doesn’t seem to correspond to anything especially bad going on in the US, so I don’t know. 20: AskReddit: Medical professionals - have you ever had a patient so lacking in common sense you wondered how they made it so far? Linking this because there’s lots of evidence showing that education (as a proxy for intelligence?) is associated with increased life expectancy, and this thread gives you a visceral appreciation of why that might be. 21: The Fall Of [programming help site] Stack Overflow: Looks like a weak downward trend since 2021 I can’t explain, plus a strong downward trend since 11/2022 which must be from ChatGPT. In case you were wondering how AI was affecting programming! (update: probably false, see here, though see also here for evidence of smaller but real decline) 22: This month in culture war topics: London’s Pride parade featured a convicted kidnapper/torturer/rapist/sadist as a speaker, who advocated that anti-trans people should be “punch[ed] in the f**king face” ; the organizers say they stand by her.
Inline links: Nate Silver, Erik Hoel, @data_depot, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!S4g-!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff18fa4d5-9ba9-4b86-a058-46246bfc8a4f_536x611.png, here, my review of, have you ever had a patient so lacking in common sense you wondered how they made it so far?, The Fall Of [programming help site] Stack Overflow, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!E7XK!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff8ba7c05-7dbb-4318-9da2-87b00d738ed7_649x518.png, probably false, see here, here, featured, stand by her
Open Thread 293
September 11, 2023 · Original source
2: Manifold Markets wants me to remind you that this is approximately your last chance to sign up for Manifest, their forecasting and prediction market conference in Berkeley, CA. Guests will include Nate Silver, Robin Hanson, Aella, Zvi, and the CEOs of Kalshi, Manifold, and Polymarket. I’m still figuring out if I can make it but I’ll try my best.
Inline links: Manifest, their forecasting and prediction market conference
Impact Market Mini-Grants Results
October 09, 2023 · Original source
Tyler Cowen likes to say that grants are as much about investing in people as in projects, so I also wanted to compliment the founders: Jingyi, Saul, and Tom, from (respectively) Brandeis, Brandeis, and Harvard. Saul has since gone on to be the lead organizer for Manifest, a forecasting conference with 200+ attendees and talks by Nate Silver, Robin Hanson, and many more. Jingyi is an officer of Brandeis Effective Altruism. And I remember Tom as being a top performer in the 22-and-under age bracket in last year’s Prediction Contest. Good luck to all of them in their remaining college and future endeavors.
Inline links: Prediction Contest
24
January 30, 2024 · Original source
I also find it encouraging that the play-money prediction market site Manifold comes pretty close and beats all the real-money sites. Nate Silver is only one person, he has only one area of expertise, and you can’t hire him to predict random things for you (unless you’re rich and he’s bored). If Manifold can apply only-slightly-sub-Nate-Silver levels of analysis at scale to arbitrary topics, that’s a big deal.
But as we saw above, the two best sources for politics have previously been Metaculus and Nate Silver. Nate Silver says (unofficially, here) that “If we do get a Trump-Biden rematch, I think the odds are roughly 50/50.” Metaculus agrees. So fine. The real odds are 50-50.
Inline links: here
Practically-A-Book Review: Rootclaim $100,000 Lab Leak Debate
March 28, 2024 · Original source
His method - called Rootclaim - uses Bayesian reasoning, a branch of math that explains the right way to weigh evidence. This isn’t exactly new. Everyone supports Bayesian reasoning. The statisticians support it, I support it, Nate Silver wrote a whole book supporting it.
But the joke goes that you do Bayesian reasoning by doing normal reasoning while muttering “Bayes, Bayes, Bayes” under your breath. Nobody - not the statisticians, not Nate Silver, certainly not me - tries to do full Bayesian reasoning on fuzzy real-world problems. They’d be too hard to model. You’d make some philosophical mistake converting the situation into numbers, then end up much worse off than if you’d tried normal human intuition.
24
May 13, 2024 · Original source
Nate Silver, Josh Barro, and others have been banging this drum recently: the most important thing Democrats can do this year is get Sonia Sotomayor to retire. Sotomayor is an older liberal-leaning Supreme Court justice. She might get sick or die in the next four years, and if Republicans win the 2024 election, then they get to choose her replacement and the Court shifts even further right. If she retired today, Biden and the Democratic Senate would choose her replacement and the Court wouldn’t shift. She doesn’t want to resign, but Silver (remembering the similar case of RBG) thinks Democrats should pressure her as best they can. The markets have been shifting between 20% and 40%, but don’t seem to expect this to happen.
Inline links: Nate Silver, Josh Barro
Prediction Markets Suggest Replacing Biden
July 02, 2024 · Original source
The Biden number is about 4% higher than Nate Silver’s model over the same time period; see below for why that might be. [EDIT 7/2/24: Original version had a miscalculation which decreased everyone’s odds by about 10%. Above version should be correct.] You can find my sources at the bottom of the post. “Explicit” odds are based on questions like “What are the chances of Biden winning if he is the nominee?” “Implied” odds were generated by combining the questions “What is the chance of Biden being the nominee?” and “What is the chance of Biden winning?”; this is safe enough with Biden, but with unlikely nominees like Newsom, some of the percentages can get small enough that they start running into small-number-biases and become less trustworthy. I’ve weighted each market’s explicit calculation higher than their implicit one to compensate. A possible objection to these results: conditional probabilities don’t exactly reflect the intuitive concept of decision-making. That is, we’re not asking “We want to know whether or not to keep Biden, so what are the chances that he’ll win if we do?”, we’re asking the market for the chance that he’ll win, in the set of worlds where people decide to keep him for other reasons. We should expect this to overestimate his performance. That is, imagine that tomorrow, Biden has completely recovered, he easily wins his next debate with Trump, and everyone agrees the most recent debate was just a fluke - in that world, he is both more likely to be nominated and more likely to win. Alternatively, if tomorrow he gets much worse and can’t even speak in full sentences, he’s much less likely to be nominated and much more likely to lose. Since the real world includes both those possibilities, restricting ourselves to the set of worlds where he gets nominated means we’re overestimating the chance that he wins. There are similar-albeit-less-severe problems with other candidates - if we choose Newsom, that might be because he won some kind of debate or process versus Harris and all the other potential replacements. Overall I expect this to be mostly correct, but probably overestimate Biden’s chances by a percent or two relative to others. Along with these three candidates, Metaculus had an explicit “should the Democrats replace Biden?” question: Manifold also asks how Democrats will do if they replace Biden (without specifying a particular replacement): We can compare this to their Biden market… …and find that once again, they expect replacing Biden to go better (though I think 51% is just cope). At the Manifest prediction market conference in early June, I interviewed Nate Silver: …and asked him for his probability that the Democrats would win this election, versus his probability that the Democrats would win conditional on Biden not being the nominee (specifically “drops dead tomorrow of natural causes”). He said 40-45% chance normally, 50% chance without Biden. This was before the debate, but I think it matches the markets’ opinion that switching candidates would help the Democrats’ chances - and this has only become more true since the debate. On the other hand, polls asking people how they would vote in possible matchups don’t show any advantage of alternate candidates over Biden. Here’s the only post-debate poll I could find: And if Biden does need to be replaced, Democrats mostly support Harris, who the prediction markets find least promising: Maybe Democrats are the wrong people to ask - they’re already going to vote Biden, so you want someone who’s more attractive to independents. Of course, in a normal primary it would be Democrats making the decision. But if elites are going to do something behind closed doors, maybe they should take advantage and choose the candidate most likely to win, for once. I think these polls are the strongest objection to the prediction markets’ verdict. You could make an argument where prediction market users are mostly educated liberal white males, and even though they’re incentivized to honestly determine what ordinary people think, they’re too out-of-touch with ordinary people to do so effectively. Or they might be over-fixating on “voters don’t like Biden’s senility” without considering that, even if voters didn’t know Biden was currently senile before Thursday, they probably guessed that he would become senile sometime in his four-year term, and had basically accepted that his aides would do the hard work. Maybe they prefer a well-known likeable incumbent over an unknown quantity (and the unknown quantity’s potential new/weird aides), even if the well-known likeable incumbent is senile. Maybe elites know more than we do about how hard it is to inject a new candidate at the last moment, how dangerous it is to have someone who hasn’t been thoroughly vetted for scandals, et cetera. Still, for now I trust the prediction markets. I think replacing Biden would add ~10 prcentage points to the Democrats’ chance of victory. At the end of this post, I’ll list the prediction markets I’m using as sources. But before then, a brief interlude of: Fuzzy Subjective Human Factors I Am Not Really Qualified To Talk About Many people on Twitter are asking “how could anyone possibly have been stupid enough to not realize that Biden was senile?” I was that stupid. I didn’t say it openly, because I’m at least smart enough to have a high threshold for giving my opinion on political things I don’t know much about. But I thought it in my heart. So in case the people asking “how could anyone have been that stupid?” actually want an explanation, here’s my former reasoning. Republicans have been accusing Biden of being senile (and the Democrats of hiding it) for at least five years now. Before the 2020 debates, they were excited that this was when they could finally prove once and for all that Biden was senile. Then Biden did fine, and they retreated to “well he’s senile but they have some secret drug they’re giving him, just during debates, that makes him look fine”. Notice this is from 2020; according to polls, he did win the debate that year (source) I think a lot about experimental cognitive enhancement drugs, and I can say with confidence that nothing like that exists. Stimulants can help people with mild dementia be more active and motivated, but they don’t really improve cognition directly, and they can’t make a demented person temporarily lucid. Still, for the past four years, every time Biden was going to do something - a press conference, a State of the Union, whatever - the Republicans would say “ha, this time is going to be the proof that he’s senile!” And then he would always do fine, and they would retreat back to “I guess he used the secret drug this time too”. The satire site Babylon Bee had some funny articles about this: Babylon Bee, after Biden gave a good State of the Union speech earlier this year. Meanwhile, the Democrats were spreading the alternate narrative that Trump was senile. This one has gotten less press, because I don’t know how many people really believed it. But it came up occasionally, along with out-of-context video snippets where Trump said or did something dumb or meandering. Of course, anybody with a presidential candidate’s level of public exposure will have a few gaffes. Even if they don’t, you can always deceptively crop something so it looks like they did. Wait, why is a psychoanalyst getting quoted as a top expert in dementia? (source) I didn’t know you could diagnose someone via Change.org petition, but 2544 people who claim to be licensed professionals can’t be wrong! So with the constant attempts to prove that both candidates were senile, the constant demonstration by both candidates that they weren’t, and the constant retreat into conspiracy theories of “I guess he used the magic drug again but we’ll get him next time!”, I just tuned out this entire category of thing. And I guess I kept it tuned out longer than I should have, whoops. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Even if liars are saying something for their usual liar reasons, it can still be true. For twenty years, people spread false rumors that Castro was on his deathbed, but this didn’t make Castro immortal. In the same way, I should have figured out that even if I couldn’t trust any particular claim that Biden was senile, the prior for an 81 year old becoming senile was still high. But I guess I assumed that if he was becoming senile, some Democratic elites would have secret knowledge about it, and they couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to deny it while also scheduling him for a debate where it would inevitably come out. So I figured the Democratic elites who were closest to him thought he was doing well, and I trusted them more than the people who had been wrong every time for the past five years. I’m still confused what those elites were thinking. Reading the news coverage for the past few days (including some video clips from a post-debate rally where he seemed noticeably better) it seems like some combination of: He has good days and bad days, and they were hoping this would be a good day.
Inline links: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!Fr-Z!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa7933bcc-fc24-4043-9064-47a958e24497_787x306.png, https://manifold.markets/HamishTodd/conditional-upon-the-democratic-par, Here’s, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!Q3fs!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff99e148f-4051-40f9-b0c6-22eb10289854_1500x1091.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!MXOh!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7d694e0c-d306-4578-a55d-5314ca965a83_1500x1246.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!qt9P!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa11d1a27-cfc2-4708-9db1-e344b391ac9a_1288x758.png, source, think a lot about experimental cognitive enhancement drugs, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!shq2!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F92d67bb2-5940-44ba-ad21-df822276280a_781x829.png, Babylon Bee, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!2y5u!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa986c7ac-16c2-4987-b520-8f6ddf9ad13d_757x690.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!SN0G!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6068601f-0eef-4a1c-b885-19f5712decf1_751x668.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!vL01!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcb26c689-1e81-422b-9493-ae44cac59125_858x814.png, source, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!6ssu!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F760276bb-2f91-4545-bbf5-d3f9fe911de7_975x654.png, Change.org petition, Reversed stupidity is not intelligence
We can compare this to their Biden market… …and find that once again, they expect replacing Biden to go better (though I think 51% is just cope). At the Manifest prediction market conference in early June, I interviewed Nate Silver: …and asked him for his probability that the Democrats would win this election, versus his probability that the Democrats would win conditional on Biden not being the nominee (specifically “drops dead tomorrow of natural causes”). He said 40-45% chance normally, 50% chance without Biden. This was before the debate, but I think it matches the markets’ opinion that switching candidates would help the Democrats’ chances - and this has only become more true since the debate. On the other hand, polls asking people how they would vote in possible matchups don’t show any advantage of alternate candidates over Biden. Here’s the only post-debate poll I could find: And if Biden does need to be replaced, Democrats mostly support Harris, who the prediction markets find least promising: Maybe Democrats are the wrong people to ask - they’re already going to vote Biden, so you want someone who’s more attractive to independents. Of course, in a normal primary it would be Democrats making the decision. But if elites are going to do something behind closed doors, maybe they should take advantage and choose the candidate most likely to win, for once. I think these polls are the strongest objection to the prediction markets’ verdict. You could make an argument where prediction market users are mostly educated liberal white males, and even though they’re incentivized to honestly determine what ordinary people think, they’re too out-of-touch with ordinary people to do so effectively. Or they might be over-fixating on “voters don’t like Biden’s senility” without considering that, even if voters didn’t know Biden was currently senile before Thursday, they probably guessed that he would become senile sometime in his four-year term, and had basically accepted that his aides would do the hard work. Maybe they prefer a well-known likeable incumbent over an unknown quantity (and the unknown quantity’s potential new/weird aides), even if the well-known likeable incumbent is senile. Maybe elites know more than we do about how hard it is to inject a new candidate at the last moment, how dangerous it is to have someone who hasn’t been thoroughly vetted for scandals, et cetera. Still, for now I trust the prediction markets. I think replacing Biden would add ~10 prcentage points to the Democrats’ chance of victory. At the end of this post, I’ll list the prediction markets I’m using as sources. But before then, a brief interlude of: Fuzzy Subjective Human Factors I Am Not Really Qualified To Talk About Many people on Twitter are asking “how could anyone possibly have been stupid enough to not realize that Biden was senile?” I was that stupid. I didn’t say it openly, because I’m at least smart enough to have a high threshold for giving my opinion on political things I don’t know much about. But I thought it in my heart. So in case the people asking “how could anyone have been that stupid?” actually want an explanation, here’s my former reasoning. Republicans have been accusing Biden of being senile (and the Democrats of hiding it) for at least five years now. Before the 2020 debates, they were excited that this was when they could finally prove once and for all that Biden was senile. Then Biden did fine, and they retreated to “well he’s senile but they have some secret drug they’re giving him, just during debates, that makes him look fine”. Notice this is from 2020; according to polls, he did win the debate that year (source) I think a lot about experimental cognitive enhancement drugs, and I can say with confidence that nothing like that exists. Stimulants can help people with mild dementia be more active and motivated, but they don’t really improve cognition directly, and they can’t make a demented person temporarily lucid. Still, for the past four years, every time Biden was going to do something - a press conference, a State of the Union, whatever - the Republicans would say “ha, this time is going to be the proof that he’s senile!” And then he would always do fine, and they would retreat back to “I guess he used the secret drug this time too”. The satire site Babylon Bee had some funny articles about this: Babylon Bee, after Biden gave a good State of the Union speech earlier this year. Meanwhile, the Democrats were spreading the alternate narrative that Trump was senile. This one has gotten less press, because I don’t know how many people really believed it. But it came up occasionally, along with out-of-context video snippets where Trump said or did something dumb or meandering. Of course, anybody with a presidential candidate’s level of public exposure will have a few gaffes. Even if they don’t, you can always deceptively crop something so it looks like they did. Wait, why is a psychoanalyst getting quoted as a top expert in dementia? (source) I didn’t know you could diagnose someone via Change.org petition, but 2544 people who claim to be licensed professionals can’t be wrong! So with the constant attempts to prove that both candidates were senile, the constant demonstration by both candidates that they weren’t, and the constant retreat into conspiracy theories of “I guess he used the magic drug again but we’ll get him next time!”, I just tuned out this entire category of thing. And I guess I kept it tuned out longer than I should have, whoops. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Even if liars are saying something for their usual liar reasons, it can still be true. For twenty years, people spread false rumors that Castro was on his deathbed, but this didn’t make Castro immortal. In the same way, I should have figured out that even if I couldn’t trust any particular claim that Biden was senile, the prior for an 81 year old becoming senile was still high. But I guess I assumed that if he was becoming senile, some Democratic elites would have secret knowledge about it, and they couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to deny it while also scheduling him for a debate where it would inevitably come out. So I figured the Democratic elites who were closest to him thought he was doing well, and I trusted them more than the people who had been wrong every time for the past five years. I’m still confused what those elites were thinking. Reading the news coverage for the past few days (including some video clips from a post-debate rally where he seemed noticeably better) it seems like some combination of: He has good days and bad days, and they were hoping this would be a good day.
Inline links: Here’s, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!Q3fs!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff99e148f-4051-40f9-b0c6-22eb10289854_1500x1091.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!MXOh!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7d694e0c-d306-4578-a55d-5314ca965a83_1500x1246.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!qt9P!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa11d1a27-cfc2-4708-9db1-e344b391ac9a_1288x758.png, source, think a lot about experimental cognitive enhancement drugs, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!shq2!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F92d67bb2-5940-44ba-ad21-df822276280a_781x829.png, Babylon Bee, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!2y5u!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa986c7ac-16c2-4987-b520-8f6ddf9ad13d_757x690.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!SN0G!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6068601f-0eef-4a1c-b885-19f5712decf1_751x668.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!vL01!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcb26c689-1e81-422b-9493-ae44cac59125_858x814.png, source, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!6ssu!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F760276bb-2f91-4545-bbf5-d3f9fe911de7_975x654.png, Change.org petition, Reversed stupidity is not intelligence
I think it’s Sonia Sotomayor. Nate Silver, who was right on Biden very early, has been pushing this really hard. Sotomayor is getting old and unhealthy, and might die within the next four years. If she dies, and Republicans win the Presidency and Senate, Trump will get to nominate her replacement, making the Supreme Court 7-2 conservative. This is the same thing that happened with RBG. Most Democrats wish RBG would have retired when she had the chance. Now Sotomayor has the chance, so she should do it. If we’re going to have a national moment where we worry about aging government officials staying on longer than is good for their party or their country, she should be the next target. Elites can sublimate whatever emotions they’re having about Biden onto Sotomayor, and maybe it’ll do some good.
Inline links: has been pushing this really hard
Links For September 2024
September 12, 2024 · Original source
41: Nate Silver has a new book, On The Edge, about risky fields, the people who thrive in them, and the skills those people need. Here’s a mostly positive review, here’s another, and here’s a mostly negative one. Many of the negative reviews are dumb (“how dare he talk about gambling and capitalism without putting I HATE THEM in bold letters on every single page!”), but one of the better criticisms was that a lot of success in risky fields comes not from good risk intelligence, but from setting up heads-I-win-tails-you-lose style scams while pretending that your success comes from good risk intelligence. So one danger of knowing about the (very real!) importance of good risk intelligence is that it makes you more vulnerable to believing these people (although I understand that one part of Nate’s book describes how he was always suspicious of SBF, even before his misdeeds were public).
Inline links: On The Edge, mostly positive review, another, a mostly negative one
42: Related: Nate Silver’s model (subscriber only, sorry) currently (as of 9-11-24) gives Trump above 60-40 odds of winning:
Inline links: model
This is partly because his model is pricing in a “convention bounce” for the Democrats around now - it’s unclear whether it’s right to do so; without the bounce (also subscriber only) they’re at 50-50. Meanwhile, forecasters are a little more optimistic about Harris’ chances:
Inline links: without the bounce
24
September 17, 2024 · Original source
Along with the cash, they’re collecting prestige and endorsements. Nate Silver recently joined their advisory board. And their Substack newsletter is lots of fun:
Inline links: recently joined their advisory board, their Substack newsletter
Book Review: Deep Utopia
October 17, 2024 · Original source
A team sport like baseball or soccer would be harder to solve. Maybe you’d have to resort to probabilistic estimates; given these two teams at this stadium, the chance of the Red Sox winning is 78.6%, because the model can’t predict which direction some random air gusts will go. I guess this is no worse than having Nate Silver making a betting model. But on the individual level, it’s still a combination of your (well understood) genes and (well understood) training regimen.
Mantic Monday: Judgment Day
November 05, 2024 · Original source
The nation’s smartest forecasters and statisticians labor full-time to mark microdeviations in the odds. Bettors sink $2.2 billion dollars - enough money to buy every homeless person in America a used car - into prediction markets. I reload Nate Silver’s blog dozens of times a day, half-anxious-for, half-dreading the next update. Any pollster capable of giving us a novel word of reassurance briefly becomes an ultra-megacelebrity before collapsing back into obscurity.
On October 14th, Polymarket gave Donald Trump 54% odds of winning, compared to Nate Silver’s 49% and Metaculus’ 45%. Whatever, everyone knows Polymarket has a small right-wing bias, and 5% isn’t too bad. Three days later, it had risen from 54% to 61%, despite no news and no change for Metaculus or Nate, bringing the Polymarket/Silver spread to an unprecedented 11%. What happened? This is the rare prediction market story where the answers are already in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal: one really rich guy put $30 million on Trump (a recent followup by Jorge Velez claims it’s actually more like $75 million). Although he prefers to remain anonymous, reporters have talked to him and are able to reveal that he’s French, goes by “Theo”, is a former banker, and has no insider connections. He just a normal rich guy who really thinks Trump will win. This is exactly the sort of shock that prediction markets are supposed to be resilient against. Instead, the market stayed at 61% for days, swung even higher for a while, finally fell back down two weeks later, then went back up again. What happened? The simplest story would be insufficient liquidity: there just weren’t enough people to gather the $75 million it would take to bet against Theo. This is superficially plausible: Polymarket requires crypto and bans Americans, so the mispricing couldn’t be corrected until enough crypto-literate, American-election-following foreigners showed up to bet $75 million. That’s a tall order, and maybe it took two weeks. But the simple story seems wrong. Other real-money markets rose approximately in tandem with Polymarket. For example, Smarkets got to Trump 59% on 10/16, and peaked at 64% on 10/30. Kalshi followed a similar path. Both tracked Polymarket, not Nate Silver or Metaculus (neither of whom ever went above Trump 55% since Harris joined the race). So I think the remaining stories are: Theo made his giant bet on Polymarket. By coincidence, at the same time, bettors everywhere massively overcounted a few good polls for Trump and started a feeding frenzy on pro-Trump shares. This made all other markets gain, and Polymarket stay at its Theo-caused peak, until a few bad polls for Trump brought everyone back to reality last week.
Inline links: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, followup, Smarkets, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!8twW!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F25ccd651-3404-446a-a7cb-5747af316038_1180x315.png
I think we’ve stepped back from the absolute most apocalyptic scenario: Polymarket is back down to 58% Trump - only eight points above Nate Silver - and WSJ has revealed Theo to be an ordinary degenerate gambler rather than a sinister manipulator. Still, this serves as a challenge to prediction market fans to figure out what went wrong and whether it will happen again.
Congrats To Polymarket, But I Still Think They Were Mispriced
November 07, 2024 · Original source
One group - the non-money forecasters - said the election was 50%. Nate Silver was in this group. So was Metaculus, a forecasting engine which has outperformed prediction markets in the past, and Manifold, a mostly-play-money prediction market.
Non-money forecasters have an opposite problem of having no incentive to get things right in the first place. This disqualifies most pundits, but the best forecasting sites have found ways around this. On Metaculus, users risk reputation rather than money; this is easier, since there isn’t some opportunity cost to Metaculus reputation that creates weird dynamics of when vs. when not to invest. On Manifold, people risk play money, which is sort of linked to real money in various obscure ways but you can’t trivially sink your life savings into Manifold and expect to get it back; this is about halfway between monetary and reputational systems. As for Nate Silver, I think he loves gambling enough that he naturally uses a gambling mindset even when he’s not risking money (although he is risking his own reputation, and sometimes does risk money on his beliefs). I didn’t originally think these kinds of “soft” incentives would work as well as real money, but the evidence above has changed my mind.
Inline links: sometimes does risk money on his beliefs
Links For February 2025
February 27, 2025 · Original source
11: Intrinsic Perspective wants a law saying AI-generated text must be watermarked. I was most interested the article’s claim that there is now “semantic watermarking” - watermarking which operates on the level of ideas, and can’t be defeated by rephrasing an AI-generated text in your own words. I have skimmed the paper explaining this and think I vaguely understand what’s going on, but it still boggles me that this is possible. 12: Aella: How OnlyFans Took Over The World. There have been camgirl sites since forever. How did OnlyFans leap over all of its predecessors and achieve an unprecedented level of success? Aella discusses many factors, but one stands out: traditional camsites advertised the site as a whole, and then once you got to the site you chose which model you wanted to see. OnlyFans encourages models to advertise themselves - often on their own social media accounts, sometimes via scams - which “unlocks human creativity” on the problem of bringing new eyeballs to a porn site. 13: Nate Silver has 113 predictions for Trump’s second term. I’d be interested to see whether making each of these predictions 10% less confident (to account for possible gameboard-overturning AI) ends up beating Nate. 14: Sarah Constantin: What’s Behind The SynBio Bust? Three of the most promising synthetic biology companies - Gingko, Zymergen, and Amyris - all crashed between 2021 and 2023. Why? Producing chemicals in traditional factories is orders of magnitude more efficient than synthesizing them via microbes (except for the sort of large biomolecules that can’t be produced in factories). These companies had brilliant employees and cool tech, but no clear plan to get around this handicap, and used up their runway before they could figure one out. They also focused too hard on designing the microbes, and were too willing to outsource the actual manufacturing to other people without being sufficiently paranoid that those other people were doing quality control. 15: One of the more exciting psychiatric results (which I blogged about a long time ago) was the apparent finding that omega-3 supplementation could prevent high-risk people from having first break schizophrenia. A new RCT says this doesn’t replicate and cites two other recent trials showing it didn’t replicate. There’s also a new meta-analysis which says actually it does replicate, but usually failing a big RCT is a bad sign and I’m pretty skeptical. Thanks to Isaak F for the links. {ETA: Thomas Reilly says: “Although I don't believe omega-3 supplementation has any benefit in psychosis, I also don't think this new trial should shift your opinion much, given the total sample size was n=135 and the total number of transitions to psychosis was n=8.”] 16: Claim that predictions of global warming magnitude are gradually going down thanks to successful pledges/action: Source is CipherNews (h/t Stefan Schubert) apparently citing Climate Action Tracker, but I get the impression that this is just some people eyeballing the size of pledges and not any more sophisticated forecasting. I don’t know how to square this with the claims that such and such a thing (summer temperature, sea ice, etc) is much worse than anyone expected. 17: I don’t know anything about the Lucy Letby case, but all of my smart friends who have been right about this kind of thing before say she’s innocent. 18: A reader asks House of Strauss (edgy sports Substack) whether the vibe shift away from political correctness threatens the edgy Substack business model - as the power of orthodoxy declines, can you still get rich and famous as a brave anti-orthodoxy critic? His answer: nothing that can happen from here is as bad as the Twitter/X link deboost (which made attracting attention harder for everyone). I mostly agree: I think discoverability has suffered, people who are already famous will be able to stay famous without too much extra effort, and everyone else will have to explore new options. 19: Spectator: Could AI Lead To A Revival Of Decorative Beauty? Profiles Not Quite Past, a startup using AI and fancy printing to make customized Delft tiles. It’s a good idea and the tiles are very pretty, but the tiles are sort of a best possible case (a pretty, traditional object that can have a customized 2D image and be mass-printed). I think most forms of lost decorative beauty aren’t bottlenecked by ability to generate 2D images of the type image models are good at, and so will have to wait. 20: Some friends including Kelsey Piper wrote an emergency PEPFAR Report, collecting evidence for why PEPFAR is good/effective/important and deserves to be kept. Some key points: PEPFAR has saved between 7.5 and 30 million lives, at a cost between $1,500 and $10,000 per life saved. The US government is willing to spend at least a thousand times this much to save an American life.
Inline links: wants a law saying AI-generated text must be watermarked, skimmed the paper explaining this, How OnlyFans Took Over The World, 113 predictions for Trump’s second term, What’s Behind The SynBio Bust?, this doesn’t replicate, actually it does replicate, says, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!S0yA!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb75ee3e3-3c0d-48b7-aa98-88f5e33dbf55_748x447.png, CipherNews, Stefan Schubert, Climate Action Tracker, the Lucy Letby case, His answer, Could AI Lead To A Revival Of Decorative Beauty?, Not Quite Past, PEPFAR Report
Open Thread 383
May 26, 2025 · Original source
3: Less Online and Manifest are rationalist blogosphere and prediction market conferences, respectively, held at the same Berkeley venue one week apart in late May / early June. Guests (attending at least one; check which) include me, Eliezer, Zvi, Aella, Nate Silver, and some of the AI 2027 team. Last-minute tickets still available. In between the two is Arbor Summer Camp, a lower-key, longer “experimental learning” event. It includes some trading/startup related classes, featuring Ricki Heicklen, Austin Chen, and others. Check out their startup workshop and startup pitch competition.
Inline links: Less Online, Manifest, Arbor Summer Camp, startup workshop, startup pitch competition
ACX Grants 1-3 Year Updates
June 18, 2025 · Original source
Manifold is the largest social prediction market platform with over 150k user‑created markets and more than 30 million trades. Our markets have been featured here on ACX, in the NYT, Nate Silver’s latest book, and countless Substacks, podcasts, and tweets. Forecasters, journalists, researchers, and casual users alike use Manifold to get accurate real-time odds on everything from elections to AI timelines to personal drama.
Inline links: Manifold