Mike Linksvayer

Sun announced today that it is releasing all of the critical pieces of the Java platform under the GPL. This is fantastic news, as a huge number of important and exciting projects are built on the Java platform and now they can be completely free as in free software. Read Tim Bray on the announcement and lots more blog commentary via Tailrank.

This should have happened years ago but as of yesterday it happened sooner than I expected. I set up a play money prediction market on Inkling (the first of two) asking whether Java would be open sourced by the end of this year. The price slowly declined from 60 in May to 20 in late October, then spiked to 70, with a last trade at 81.76 this morning.

I judged the contract at 100, but probably shouldn’t have — much of the code won’t be released until early next year. Oops. Good thing Inkling markets are play money and zero oversight, or Chris F. Masse would rightly castigate me.

On rare occasions interrupting an activity to check feed subscriptions saves time, e.g., when the activity is writing a blog post on electability implied by prediction market contracts for nomination and election, and a post by David Schneider-Joseph on Nominatibility and Electability shows up that says most of what I wanted to say:

The fact that, in the real world, 2008.PRES.GIULIANI divided by 2008.GOP.NOM.GIULIANI happens to equal 72.2 simply means that, in those scenarios where Giuliani actually ends up being nominated, his electability averages 72.2. But his abstract electability, given the hypothetical scenario in which the Republican Party nominated him without considering other candidates, is not necessarily the same.

This far out one should not read too much into electability implied by prediction market price ratios, but they’ll be interesting to follow anyway, and on primary election or caucus days, and the eve of nomination even moreso, a power-hungry partisan would do well to pay heed (at that point scenarios where candidate A versus B gets nominated differ little excepting that candidate A or B gets nominated).

Of course I’d really like to see a party that nominates the candidate whose nomination is predicted to best further outcomes preferred by the party — platform as a utility function — nomination by futarchy. If a party’s preferred policies are not predicted to lead to a party’s preferred outcomes, a futarchist nominating process could lead to the nomination of the candidate most likely to lose!

Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia says to dream a little:

Imagine there existed a budget of $100 million to purchase copyrights to be made available under a free license. What would you like to see purchased and released under a free license?

…

I was recently asked this question by someone who is potentially in a position to make this happen, and he wanted to know what we need, what we dream of, that we can’t accomplish on our own, or that we would expect to take a long time to accomplish on our own.

One shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth and this could do a great deal of good, particularly if the conditions “can’t accomplish on our own…” are stringently adhered to.

However, this is a blog and I’m going to complain.

Don’t fork over money to the copyright industry! This is defeatist and exhibits static world thinking.

$100 million could fund a huge amount of new free content, free software, free infrastructure and supporting institutions, begetting more of the same.

But if I were a donor with $100 million to give I’d try really hard to quantify my goals and predict the most impactful spending toward those goals. I’ll just repeat a paragraph from last December 30, Outsourcing charity … to Wikipedia:

Wikipedia chief considers taking ads (via Boing Boing) says that at current traffic levels, Wikipedia could generate hundreds of millions of dollars a year by running ads. There are strong objections to running ads from the community, but that is a staggering number for a tiny nonprofit, an annual amount that would be surpassed only by the wealthiest foundations. It could fund a staggering Wikimedia Foundation bureaucracy, or it could fund additional free knowledge projects. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has asked what will be free. Would an annual hundred million dollar budget increase the odds of those predictions? One way to find out before actually trying.

Via Boing Boing via /.

Chris F. Masse points out Smartcrowd, a blog that gathers prices from several markets as the primary component of its commentary. I’d really like to see a service that only gathers prices for related contracts from several markets in an automated fashion, but Smartcrowd’s apparently manual index on GOP control of the U.S. House is a useful start.

Masse’s summary and comment on U.S. House control contracts are contradictory:

[real-money political prediction markets predict a GOP-controlled House while play-money political prediction markets predict a Dem-controlled House.]

So the crowds at Casual Observer and Newsfutures currently favour Democrats to win the House of Representatives, while the crowds at Tradesports and WSX suggest the Republicans will retain control of the House of Reps.

But WSX is a play-money market.

Aggregation should highlight a problem with play-money markets — play money is not fungible, so one can’t arbitrage between play-money markets, effectively reducing their size. I say should because there’s a pretty big discrepancy between Betfair and Tradesports real-money prices for US. House control. I’m guessing that with more active markets price difference among real money markets would shrink. There should be mountains of evidence one way or the other for sports bets. Anyone know?

By the way, Masse’s collective blog on prediction markets isn’t really launched yet but you may as well subscribe preemptively. Same for his insider blog which has a clever tagline (”the sidebar blog of prediction markets”).

Update 20060926: Masse points out Oddschecker, which does what I want for sports bets (hopefully they’ll expand) and a paper that has some evidence for lack of arbitrage opportunities between real money exchanges. See the comments for details.

Nick Gillespie interviews Chris Anderson:

Anderson laments that national politics has yet to become part of the Long Tail. “I wish the system would put forward politicians that I could vote for,” he says.

I wouldn’t expect it to. At a minimum you need something like approval voting or at the extreme delegable proxy voting. I’ve always found such reforms curious but distracting, as I don’t know what their impact on policy outcomes would be, and I suspect they’d be small. However given that voters are not outcome oriented I wonder if being able to make a closer to their ideal expression when oting would make voters happier, at least for time they are in the voting booth.

But the real long tail of politics isn’t about elections at all. Even if I can vote for my ideal candidate, or vote directly on every issue, at the end of the day I will still get policies approximating those of George W. Bush and John Kerry. That’s like being able to order any of millions of books at Amazon but always getting the current #1 best seller delivered regardless of your order.

The real long tail of politics is decentralization and arbitrage. Lots of people say “Bush isn’t my president.” Why can’t that be true? Declare yourself Venezuelan, Hugo Chavez is your president. It should be (almost) that easy. If that seems extreme and disruptive, at least executive power should be curtailed, for surely it is the antithesis of long tail politics. And being able to live and work in any jurisdiction should be a given.

Via Boing Boing.

I don’t follow the nitty gritty and scandal du jour of U.S. politics, but I’m getting a stronger sense that part of 9-11 repeal should be impeachment. Glenn Whitman says it well:

Maybe I just have Bush Derangement Syndrome. But I find myself agreeing with James Wimberly and Mark Kleiman: there exist more than sufficient grounds for impeaching George W. Bush. In his recent statements about CIA detainees, he essentially confessed to violations of U.S. law. The laws in question provide for criminal punishments – of 20 years or more – for acts of torture and violations of the Geneva Convention.

Send the abominable person to prison!

FX’s play money Bush impeached or resigns (anytime before his term ends) last traded at about 17, more or less where it has been in its year of trading. The closest real money analogs I know of would be Intrade’s Rumsfeld.Resign.Dec06 at bid/sell/last of 16.0/17.8/16.0 and Cheney.Resign.Dec06 at 4.1/4.5/4.5.

A survey of IEEE Fellows (distinguished engineers) is cast as bursting tech bubbles before they balloon but doesn’t really do anything of the sort. Emphasis added:

So although we may not be able to say that in 2015 a space elevator will be shuttling goods and people into orbit or that in 2020 we’ll all have robot servants, we can foresee that in the next several decades we will be building our infrastructure in a new way: we will have unlimited computing resources, live in a sensory-rich computing environment, and reengineer ourselves and the biological world around us.

Even stereotypically science fiction technologies such as self-driving cars and humanoid robot elder care are seen as likely by 26.4% and 27.1% of respondents respectively or given equal chances by 30.2% and 27.9%. I think those responses are for “in the next 50 years”, though it is not made entirely clear.

It would be interesting to compare the survey with FX prices. At a glance it appears FX traders are more optimistic than IEEE Fellows, though I don’t know of any claims that exactly match survey questions. FX is gives driverless cars by 2015 a 15% chance and a humanly mobile robot by 2036 a 79% chance.

If I read the article correctly about 13% of respondents say commercial machine translation is likely by 2016 (64.8% say it is likely, presumably in the next 50 years, 19.8%, presumably of those who say it is likely, say it is likely in the next 10 years), while the last FX price of machine translation by 2015 is 67.

So perhaps the survey “bursts bubbles” relative to FX traders (who are a very technophilic bunch), but the future it envisions is still one of radical new capabilities — a future that is much better than the present. I particularly like the engineering profession’s appreciation for decentralization.

Via Boing Boing.

One of the more annoying things political pundits do is to consistently make the case that their candidate or cause is a likely winner, or if too obvious a loser, at least will beat expectations. Surely there is demand for pundits as critical about their favored outcome’s chances as they are about their ufavored outcomes? Perhaps if I watched lots of television I would know of such a chimera.

Fortunately there are again (see Historical Presidential Betting Markets) markets to give anyone who wants one a reality check. However, it is rare (in the U.S.) for a “third party” candidate to be significant enough for an election market to cast any light on their chances. Often “field” will be available (for example, Intrade currently lists the following spreads for 2008 Presidential Election Winner (Political Party): Democrat 49.1/49.2, Republican 47.6/48.4, Field 2.9/3.2) but chance accorded by traders to “the field” has to be based on the expectation that a viable independent will come out of the woodwork (e.g., Ross Perot in 1992) rather than the expectation that a Green, Libertarian, or other minor party candidate has a non-negligible chance of victory. This is too bad in a way, as my casual observation says that minor party backers are more delusional than most when it comes to their candidate’s chances.

It appears that in the Texas 22nd congressional district there is a possibility that “the field” may map strongly to a minor party candidate’s chances — Libertarian Party nominee Bob Smither. Democrat Nick Lampson is the only major party candidate on the ballot. Republican Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is running a write-in campaign.

A Smither press release proclaims that “The Experts Agree” that Smither has the best chance of defeating Lampson, and quotes four sources that say something along those lines. These “experts” aren’t putting anything on the line though — the Intrade CD22 market has the following current bid/ask/last values: Democrat 70.0/90.0/76.0, Republican 12.0/19.9/12.0, Field 2.0/9.9 /0.1.

Traders seem to think a Smither victory is about as likely as Lampson and Sekula-Gibbs photographed together in bed, with a dog. Maybe that isn’t too unlikely. Put your money where your delusions are!

Regarding expert political judgement, I’m planning to read that book soon.

Todd Henderson:

Conditional prediction markets (e.g.,, what will Firm X’s stock price be in one year if the strategy proposed by a corporate raider is adopted) could allow corporations to estimate the effect of different major decisions, such as whether to acquire a target, whether to adopt a governance reform, or whether to dismiss a CEO, on stock price.

Henderson doesn’t take this as far as corporate governance by futarchy, but that’s the logical conclusion if such prediction markets work well.

Via Chris Masse of course (Mr. Liquidity, please note “…make it possible to generate sound predictions even in very thin markets”).

Via Chris F. Masse, who does not provide a permanent link to his “external link” post, The Journal of Prediction Markets is launching late this year with several usual suspects on the editorial board. I used Inkling’s make your own market feature to create a play market in whether the journal will be Open Access:

Pays if the Journal of Prediction Markets is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals before 2008/01/01.

See the Wikipedia article for background on Open Access.

Just for kicks — as an insider decision, this is probably not a good subject for a prediction market.

I noted with interest that the journal is to be published by the University of Buckingham Press, the publishing arm of apparently the only university in the UK jurisdiction not funded by the state. Although it is small I am surprised I had not heard of this university previously due to its free market connections or in the Economist, which loves to write about the sorry state of British higher education and the even sorrier state of higher education on the European continent.

Should I take this opportunity to ask Mr. Masse (who is entirely above insinuation, a better person than I) about French universities?

Addendum 20060523: Masse thinks I’m crazy for creating a market on Inkling. He doesn’t like Inkling because they removed one of their founders from their site (irrelevant, Masse-ive overreaction) and believes that liquidity is the most important attribute of an exchange, implied corollaries being that it is dumb to start a new exchange in an area where one already exists and it is dumb to allow user-created markets, both of which will lead to diffuse, thinly-traded markets. I think the field is far too young to say that a newcomer cannot topple existing exchanges even if they are natural monopolies (We’ve discussed this before) or that large numbers of niche (and thus thinly traded) claims will not prove valuable.

Why has Masse not created a market at Inkling? Is his consultancy page correct?

Each player in the field only sees his/her little part of it —I have to have the complete, global, situational, long-term, overview outlook perspective.

Is he overconfident in his negative assessment of Inkling or merely falling behind in his research?

It looks like Google Trends ranks overrepresentation of cities, regions, and languages for specific queries. Arabic browsers are most likely to search for sex, Chinese most likely to search for Tiananmen. Past posts on Islamic sex and Tiananmen.

A term needs pretty heavy search volume to be trended, which is probably good — massive ego searchers will not be revealed, much to their disappointment.

Prediction market doesn’t make the cut, though I predict it will soon.

Creative Commons confirms the success of CC-Spain (of which I’ve seen other indicators), particularly in the Catalan-speaking region.

Google Trends doesn’t seem to do stemming nor does it suggest spelling alternatives.

Google and Yahoo! turn up no futarchists and nothing about futarchism or futarchisms. Are you a futarchist?

…

What are the implications of the Lucas critique for futarchy and prediction markets generally, or social policy bonds? Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: Acquiring And Aggregating Costly Information From Sources Of Differing Quality (2006; PDF) mentions in passing:

There is a third theoretical doubt, a type of “Lucas critique.” If a prediction market becomes reliable, and this reliability changes policy or politics, this creates strategic incentives to manipulate the market. If the strategic incentives are strong enough, they could offset any monetary losses incurred by the manipulators.

Very indirectly via Patri Friedman, who mentioned Goodhart’s Law.

I suspect the implication is that although making sense of prediction markets seems a little harder the critique probably applies more strongly to bureaucratic goal setting, making market mechanisms look relatively better than in absence of the critique. That’s just a wild[ly biased] speculation.

Here’s an Idea: Let Everyone Have Ideas in today’s NYT tantalizes and annoys. Although the article never uses the words prediction market or similar (idea futures, decision market) it seems to describe a wildly successful internal prediction market at Rite-Solutions (see below for link), though I have to wonder whether the company isn’t giving more credit to its internal stock market than is warranted (a product line suggested via the market just a year ago now accounts for 30 percent of sales — either their salespeople are expert at pushing vapor or the product was already under development) for the press.

InnoCentive, the other company profiled, seems to be a freelancing site for biologists and chemists, much like RentACoder.

The article attempts to segue between the stories:

The next frontier is to tap the quiet genius that exists outside organizations — to attract innovations from people who are prepared to work with a company, even if they don’t work for it.

I agree that’s an interesting frontier, but contracting out solutions, while good and useful, differs wildly from using a market to make or inform decisions. What could’ve been an interesting story on either company turned into another breezy zeitgeist article.

In any case, a company might want to open parts of its internal prediction market to its customers, suppliers, shareholders, or even the public. I don’t think either mentions prediction markets (I’ve only skimmed), but this would very much be in the spirit of Democratizing Innovation and Collaboration Rules.

Here’s a suggestion for Rite-Solution’s stock market — get a real web site (symbol: WWW). The Flash thing at http://ritesolutions.com is from bizarro world — looks a little bit like a web site, but really slow, totally pointless transitions, and utterly unlinkable. A good reminder what the net would be like without open formats and standards.

Jason Ruspini writes about a discussion of upcoming housing futures. One of the open questions about this new market is who will buy (buy long that is — use for hedging against price declines is considered obvious). I often see it implied that the only set of people harmed by housing price increases are non-homeowners. Ruspini:

The natural buyers would be prospective home-buyers, trying to ensure that they aren’t priced-out of the market, but the relative wealth of that group is - naturally - very small.

But most homeowners are prospective home-buyers. Though U.S. residents are moving less often (this was a big surprise to me) 1 in 14 homeowners moves each year and the market for second homes is booming. It seems that anyone potentially moving to better, additional, or housing in a more expensive market than their own would be interested in hedging against price increases. Add in parents who want to ensure their children can buy a home nearby, you have a large and very wealthy group.

Edward Glaeser is quoted making essentially the same mistake in an otherwise excellent article on his work recently published in the NYT Magazine:

Homeowners, he points out, have a strong incentive to stop new development, both because it can be an inconvenience and also because, like any monopolist, stopping supply drives up the price of their own homes. “Lack of affordable housing isn’t a problem to homeowners,” Glaeser says; that’s exactly what they want. “The thing you want most is to make sure that your home is not affordable if you own it. And for that reason, there’s absolutely no reason to think that little suburban communities with no businesses that are run essentially by their homeowners will make the right decisions for the state as a whole, for the business in the area, for the country as a whole.”

Actually I think it is the anti-housing homeowners who are mistaken (or very short-sighted), not Glaeser, who is probably right at least in part about their motivations.

It seems to me that except to the extent one exits the market (by selling vacation homes, trading down, or moving to a less expensive market) rising prices don’t offer homeowners much benefit apart from bragging rights and the ability to obtain larger secondary loans (which have to be paid back).

Consider car owners, or an even more extreme case, food owners. If car or food production was restricted, the price of their assets would increase. However, in a few years, or a few days in the case of food, they would have to pay in some combination of higher prices, lower quality, and lower quantity.

It is pretty clear that everyone benefits from cheaper transportation and food regardless of whether they presently have a car in the garage and bread in the cupboard and that everyone is harmed by more expensive transportation and food. I’d argue housing is much more like cars and food — consumption goods — than most people are ready to admit.

There were a surprising number of panels more or less concerning entrepreneurship. I only attended one of these, Sink or Swim: The Five Most Important Startup Decisions. It was very mildly amusing but as far as I could tell the only important decision discussed was whether to look for outside funding or not, a well-trod topic if there ever was one. There was even one panel on Selling (Big Ideas to Big Clients).

I understand that Creative Commons was mentioned in passing on many panels. Attendees coming to our booth were much better informed than in years past, part of a greater trend.

The Digital Preservation and Blogs panel I was on was interesting for the self-selection of the audience — I imagine every librarian and historian attending SXSW were present. A writeup, photo, and my narrow take.

Both accepted panels I helped conceive went very well, especially Open Science. Though an outlier for SXSW the audience Q&A as high quality. Moderator John Wilbanks did a great job of keeping a diverse panel (open access journal editor, synthetic biologist, IT standards person, and VC) on point.

Commons-Based Business Models included Ian Clarke of Revver, which encourages sharing of short videos with an unobtrusive advertisement at the end under a CC license that does not permit derivative works. This licensing choice was made so that stripping out the advertisement is not permitted. Jimmy Wales challenged Clarke to think about opening up some content on an experimental basis. Sounds like a good idea to me. I suggested from the audience that attribution can require a link back to Revver, so even modified videos are valuable. Clarke responded that advertising at a link away is far less valuable. True, but the question is whether derivative works that could not otherwise exist become popular enough to outweigh those that merely remove advertising. I suspect many derivatives would be uploaded directly to Revver, allowing the company and original creators to take full advantage of additional revenue and to become the leading site for explicit remixing of video, a la ccMixter for audio. Seems worth an experiment — Revver is in no danger of becoming the leading video site at the current rate.

I also asked Clarke about interest in his FairShare patronage system. He said Revver is aimed at the same problem (funding creators) but was easier to implement. In the same vein I met John Pratt of Fundable, which is based in Austin. I got the impression he didn’t think the service could be viral (I disagree). I’ve written about FairShare, Fundable and related ideas several times in the past, mostly linked to in my Public Goods Group Shopping post and its comments. The field is ripe for a really good service.

The EFF/CC party was very well attended, even not considering its obscure location (an Elks club). In the middle of the facility was a room of Elks members, playing cards and other games, oblivious to the SXSW crowd that outnumbered Elks even in that room. I gave a very brief thank-you speech for CC, which I closed with a prayer (because we were in Texas) to J.R. “Bob” Dobbs (because we were in Austin).

At the end of the trade show Rob Kaye alerted me to the giveaway of every book at a well-respected computer publisher’s booth to “cool geeks” or similar. 5-10 years ago this would’ve really excited me, but this time I was mostly concerned about bulk and weight. I took a few. I suspect they’ll be among the last computer books I obtain, free or otherwise.

James Surowiecki gave a presentation which I did not attend but I hear focused on prediction markets. I should’ve made the time to attend simply to see the crowd reaction. Several of the latest sites cropping up in that field certainly look like they were designed by potential SXSW attendees — circa 2004/5 generically attractive web applications. I should have some posts on that topic soon, starting with Chris F. Masse’s 2005 Awards.

William F. Buckley admits that the U.S. military adventure in Iraq is a defeat, but willfully fails to learn anything from it.

It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn’t work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates.

His two postulates amount to an assumption that wherever the U.S. intervenes people will act in accordance with U.S. politicians’ wishes. Nevermind that this doesn’t even work within the U.S. jurisdiction.

Buckley attributes defeat soley to “Iraqi animosities.” Even if that were the sole cause blame can be pinned firmly on U.S. politicians who were very well aware of Shiite/Sunni/Kurd/Christian/etc. “animosities” as leveraging these was a major component of U.S. policy toward Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. However, Buckley ignores economic mismanagement, Abu Ghraib and doubtless many other idiocies endemic to political management, nevermind military-political management. To do so would be to accept blame and teeter on the edge of admitting error.

If Buckley hopes to fence off his “postulates” (and thus U.S. policy) from criticism by admitting defeat in this one instance I hope he fails miserably, but I fully expect he and other advocates of interventionism will succeed in this subversion of truth. The long history of poor outcomes of U.S. intervention in the Middle East, elsewhere, and within the U.S. jurisdiction (domestically) is forgotten completely and is never learned from.

I have probably suggested too many times that prediction markets could help remind voters that the most likely outcomes are not those predicted by politicians.

On a related note: So what if Iraq splits? A jurisdiction is not a sacred entity.

Via Mike Godwin. You must check out Godwin’s awesome site design. (Don’t worry, I still hate Macs.)

I’m not going to make new predictions for search this year — it’s already underway, and my predictions for 2005 mostly did not come true. I predict that most of them will, in the fullness of time:

Metadata-enhanced search. Yahoo! and Google opened Creative Commons windows on their web indices. Interest in semantic markup (e.g., microformats) increased greatly, but search that really takes advantage of this is a future item. (NB I consider the services enabled by tags more akin to browse than search and as far as I know they don’t allow combinging tag and keyword queries.)

Proliferation of niche web scale search engines. Other than a few blog search services, which are very important, I don’t know of anything that could be called “web scale” — and I don’t know if blog search could really be called niche. One place to watch is public search engines using Nutch. Mozdex is attempting to scale up, but I don’t know that they really have a niche, unless “using open source software” is one. Another place is Wikipedia’s list of internet search engines.

On the other hand, weblications (as Web 2.0) did take off.

I said lots of desktop search innovation was a near certainty, but if so, it wasn’t very visible. I predicted slow progress on making multimedia work with the web, and I guess there was very slow progress. If there was forward progress on usable security it was slow indeed. Open source did slog toward world domination (e.g., Firefox is the exciting platform for web development, but barely made a dent in Internet Explorer’s market share) with Apple’s success perhaps being a speed bump. Most things did get cheaper and more efficient, with the visible focus of the semiconductor industry swinging strongly in that direction (they knew about it before 2005).

Last year I riffed on John Battelle’s predictions. He has a new round for 2006, one of which was worth noting at Creative Commons.

Speaking of predictions, of course Google began using prediction markets internally. Yahoo!s Tech Buzz Game has some markets relevant to search but I don’t know how to interpret the game’s prices.

Cost of War in Iraq, a new paper from Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, has already been discussed, at least superficially, on a large number of blogs. Comments at Marginal Revolution helpfully cite a number of related papers.

Bilmes and Stiglitz conservatively project that the total economic costs for the U.S. jurisdiction at $1 to $2 trillion. Direct budgetary costs are projected to be $750 billion to $1.2 billion. I have only skimmed the paper, which looks interesting enough, but nothing really new.

I’ve mentioned increasing cost projects several times last year and before, directly in Trillion dollar fraud (August), $700 billion fraud (July) and A lie halfway fulfilled (January 2005).

I won’t bother to explain the fraud this time, read the past posts. Hint: it involves repeatability.

One thing I’m struck by, skimming comments contesting Bilmes and Stiglitz (the political ones, not the technical ones concerning borrowing costs should be included, though they overlap) is that after the fact, I think many people would claim that the invasion was justified, economically and otherwise, regardless of the final cost. $5 trillion? (NB, that is a hypothetical, not a prediction!) It was worth getting rid of Hussein and deterring would-be Husseins. $10 trillion? Just goes to show how nasty “our” opponents are. $100 trillion? Civilization must be destroyed to save civilization!

All the more reason to be cognizant of probable costs before going to war. There’s not really a need for prediction markets here. Just multiply proponents’ estimates by ten. However, people stupidly believe words that come out of politicians’ mouths. Prediction market estimates could, ironically, provide a countervailing authority.

A better way? See Wright, Scheer, Zakaria, Hardar, Tierney, and Pape.

Last June I wrote about Methuselah Mouse Prize related prediction market claims and suggested that claims conditioned on MPrize fundraising goals would be interesting. I just noticed that Mprize.org makes predictions of its own via its ill-explained The Life Line Equation calculator.

I couldn’t find any discussion of the calculator and it is not very prominent on the Mprize.org site. I suspect not much thought was put into it, but the implicit claims are interesting anyway. Given a year of birth, the calculator provides an expected lifespan and an estimate of funds required to reverse aging before you die, as well as a plot like the following:

One problem with the calculator is that it apparently doesn’t use age-adjusted life expectancy. The average 75 year old is not expected to die next year, as per the calculator.

In the table below I’ve taken the output of the Life Line Equation calculator, supplemented with age-adjusted data from U.S. National Center for Health Statistics life tables (italicized).

The implication is that to reverse aging by 2029, the MPrize needs $9,850,000, and furthermore that aging could be reversed very shortly with enough incentive and that aging will be reversed 2030 or so regardless of MPrize funding (the funds needed to reverse aging after that date are insignificant, so I think it would be fair to discount the role of the MPrize in reversing aging after that date, if not much sooner).

MPrize funding currently stands at $1.4m, with an additional $1.8m committed. So according to MPrize.org I (born 1970) have nothing to worry about. Hooray!

Well, perhaps not. The calculator seeems pretty poorly conceived and implemented. Still, it would be very interesting to obtain estimates of the impact various levels of MPrize funding might have on anti-aging breakthroughs. Such estimates would be great marketing fodder for MPrize fundraisers–even a very modest impact would save many lives.

As I mentioned before one means of obtaining such (collective) estimates would be to condition anti-aging prediction contracts on MPrize funding levels. Very simplistically, “what is the chance aging will be reversed by 2030?” and “what is the chance aging will be reversed by 2030 if the MPrize raises $100m by 2010?” (Obviously a real claim would define some specific indicator for aging reversal, e.g., a 90 percent drop in 75 year old mortality relative to 75 year old mortality in 2005.)

I still strongly recommend supporting the Methuselah Mouse Prize and the Strategies for Engineered Neglibible Senescense generally.

While I’m peeving away, I wish Rejuvenation Research were an open access journal. “[M]most important of all: this journal needs to be read.” At $263/year for a personal online-only subscription I don’t think so.

Addendum 20060118: There is a claim on FX very much like the aging reversal claim I outlined above — 90% drop in overall death rate before 2050 relative to 1994 rate. I almost certainly read this claim in the past and forgot about it, but not its general thrust.

I saw author Wil McCarthy give a talk at Etech nearly two years ago and read the book shortly after. Now (via Boing Boing) Hacking Matter is available as a free download (under the most restrictive Creative Commons license), so I guess it’s time to post a mini-review.

Programmable matter is any bulk substance that can have its physical properties altered on demand. McCarthy’s focus is on quantum dots woven into bulk matter and controlled by electricity.

The quantum dots can form arbitrarily sized artificial atoms on demand, radically changing the bulk matter’s properties. Examples (from p. 119 of the PDF):

Not all of these could be changed arbitrarily and simultaneously, as many are correlated, but the point is “doped” matter becomes practically magic. Apart from obvious many billion dollar applications in fashion, personal and household goods and industrial processes, cheap bulk programmable matter would enable the conservation bomb to go nuclear (figuratively speaking), producing super efficient heating, cooling, and solar engergy collection. Beyond that, the possibilities quickly go into the realm heretofore of science fiction and magic.

There is a problem of course–making quantum dots in bulk cheaply. Apparently progress is being made, but there’s a long way to go to anything that could be called cheap. As far as I can tell a hot application now is “nanosensing” which isn’t really bulk.

Molecular nanotechnology could presumably produce programmable matter with abandon, but MNT may be some ways off. From about as far away from any related field as possible, quantum dots lack the hype and controversy surrounding “nanotechnology” and MNT, though research and small scale applications are well underway. As solid state, programmable matter also shouldn’t scare some people has MNT has–no self replication.

Hacking Matter is a popular science book and tries to balance between describing the personalities doing the research, technical information, and wild speculation. I could’ve done without the anecdotes. I’m sorry to admit that the technical parts were at about the right level for me, having a very weak science background, which also leaves me largely unable to pass judgement on the speculative parts. There definitely needs to be a more rigorous but still somewhat accessible treatment.

I was convinced that programmable matter will be an important technology in the not too distant future, though not inspired a la Engines of Creation, though that comparison is probably unfair.

I recommend skimming Hacking Matter if you’re interested, and skimming the brief programmable matter FAQ even if you aren’t particularly interested, just for the purpose of being informed.

At Etech I asked McCarthy if he had any easily judged predictions about the development of programmable matter technology (for use as prediction market claims of course). He didn’t have anything concrete on the spot–something about “bulk material should be available” if I recall. The Cheaper Dots story cited above mentions “$2,000 a gram”. Are cost per gram or grams produced good general metrics?