The stock market rise after Biden's 2020 election victory seems to imply that the primary stock markets assigned odds to a Trump victory more like the betting markets' 35% than 538's 10%.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
Reasoning
Inferring 'prior odds' of markets from a post-election rise is an interpretive claim about unobservable market beliefs.
Cite this claim
Eliezer Yudkowsky, “The stock market rise after Biden's 2020 election victory seems to imply that the primary stock markets assigned odds to a Trump victory more like the betting markets' 35% than 538's 10%.” (said 9 November 2020). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_59a94a8bec8c, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_59a94a8bec8c
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Eliezer Yudkowsky
-
Mostly true
“Your annual reminder that there is no such thing whatsoever as a legal duty for a corporation's Board or management to maximize its profits.”
There is no legal duty for a corporation's board or management to maximize its profits.
-
Mostly true
“As you know, I've often earlier criticized the Fed for not creating enough money fast enough.”
-
Mixed
“I was observing that obvious-seeming hypothesis myself, sometime around the time of GPT 3.5.”
Yudkowsky himself observed the persona-selection-like hypothesis around the time of GPT 3.5.
-
Mostly true
“The test-passing preference stands on its own once formed.”
-
Mostly true
“LLMs surely have neural circuits they learned to model text streams from fictional and nonfictional personas that are not lying, deceiving, cheating.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.