People have been making claims about the commoditization of llms since chatGPT, and they've been wrong every time as quality and prices and differentiation have increased.
But Scott's point is more: why even have markets? Once you have the superforecasting available on the questions you care about, why do you need to publish it for everyone to also react to?
Almost by definition, once AI forecasters are in the market, they won't (all) be beating the market.
But why evaluate AI forecasters by beating the market? Do we evaluate deep learning by whether hedge funds make money from it in the markets? These things have far, far more utility outside of finance.
Doesn't this argument prove too much? Why does AlphaSense sell their company research instead of using it to trade themselves? Why do people work on open source time series forecasting packages instead of quietly using them to trade?
Is this the trend? There have been various points where one of Anthropic or OpenAI was substantially ahead. Sure, many times they're close, but now doesn't seem like one of them.
I'm going to pre-register my prediction that GPT-5.6 Sol is significantly behind Claude Fable 5, as evaluated by general consensus once time has passed for people to get familiar with both.
If it's helpful, I'm still holding at July 9 as my median date that Fable gets re-released to Americans, the news of the last 24 hours didn't update the model meaningfully.
People forget that Meta already did this years ago, before prediction markets became the next big consumer trend for them to chase.
The app was called Forecast, and launched in June 2020. (Around the same time that Kalshi and Polymarket launched, actually!) It was framed as a way to make the comments and activity on Facebook actually productive rather than toxic, and build expert reputation signaling mechanisms.
You mean chatgpt style AI won't help them with those skills?
If a human parent or teacher can help with skills like reading, an AI system can too, once it's trained and designed to do so. (How good are humans at teaching reading anyway?)
I linked elsewhere in a comment, Metaculus has AGI forecasts.
You can also now use AI forecasters like FutureSearch [1] (disclaimer: I work there), which are competitive with the best humans / teams of humans. And since you aren't depending on a human crowd, you can ask any variation of AGI questions with any definition, even ask conditional questions.
It's been a big problem for a while. The big Metaculus question about AGI has depends on the game "Montezuma's revenge" (!), and there have been many debates about this going back to at least 2020: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3479/date-weakly-general...