Based upon current actuarial tables:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
If someone is around 20 years old, they will on average be expected to live around another 60 years, to age 80, meaning the year 2080 today.
If someone who is 10 years old today joins in another 10 years after this market starting, they will live to the year 2090 on average (putting them at 80, with a stretch goal at 100 in the year 2110 with extremely low likelihood).
(added 20230714: the above actuarial table is just an example, there may be many).
However:
1) People are usually overconfident and think they are going to live beyond the average. Few actively expect themselves to be the sad sap that dies early if they don't have a good reason to. So someone might reckon that they will live to 100 years old, which would put a 20-year old player at around the year 2100, and they might join the market thinking, "yeah, I'm super healthy, I will make it to 2100." If they don't join, they are tacitly agreeing that they will probably not make it to 2100, questioning their own mortality.
2) Use this same logic for someone who is 10 years old today, who will be about 20 years old in 10 years from now, when they join the market. Will they join and reckon that they are super healthy and vote YES?
3) Or, will people be logical and look at the actuarial tables, will there be a sufficient number of individuals who see others logically, even if they don't look at themselves logically, and think, "No, they clearly are not likely to make it that long, just look at the tables."
Basically this is a market testing people's level of denial of their own liklihood of death at an average age, essentially it's a death dunning-kruger market.
From @jack , I agree with this statement:
I assume there's an implicit deadline of 2033 by which the participant must have joined, otherwise someone could just join in 2100 and then live ten more years and then it resolves YES. Please state this explicitly.
20230714: Info regarding actuarial tables is contextual only. There is no one set of definitive actuarial tables that lasts forever.
20230714: For the purposes of this market, 18 years old at the time of counting is the cutoff for participating for no reason other than I am not comfortable with doing anything close to encouraging kids gambling.
1,000
1.00I suggest you condition this on no singularity/AGI, given my interpretation of your description.
@RobertCousineau further maybe ad a note saying "anyone over the age of 18" z a parent could likely set up an account for their infant, have their infant tap "bid" and then assuming their infant lives as long as a person in Japan the market would resolve yes.
@RobertCousineau I'm not going to condition it on anything. I will leave that up to people in the comments saying that such-and-such world doom scenario is going to happen or not going to happen. I will not as the market maker state anything. However I will say that just given my age, my chance of dying in the next 10 years is around ~5% or so, and I will not designate someone else to resolve the market, so there might be a chance that this does not actually get resolved. There's also a chance that Manifold folds, or their database gets corrupted somehow, or they clean out old markets...who knows.
@RobertCousineau People under 18 will not be allowed to be counted for the purposes of this market because presumably that's illegal.
@RobertCousineau As a thank you for helping me refine the market. https://manifold.markets/link/ElTS18Yb
@PatrickDelaney I see no reason it would be illegal for someone under 18 to participate here.
I assume there's an implicit deadline of 2033 by which the participant must have joined, otherwise someone could just join in 2100 and then live ten more years and then it resolves YES. Please state this explicitly.
Also, in the description you talk about overconfidence and actuarial tables, but actuarial tables are about current life expectancy. This question is really a question about life extension. This market can be compared to e.g. https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-anybody-born-before-2000-live - if that resolves YES, this can also easily resolve YES.
@jack I guess my presumption is that someone being under 18 is not allowed to gamble, and therefore not allowed to be on this website. Of course the laws could change. I guess I could bet on behalf of my two-year-old son, right? There needs to be some kind of cutoff for the purposes of discussion, so let's just say you have to be 18 to enter.
Yes, 2033 is the implicit deadline, correct.
If you have some future actuarial tables you would like to provide that they are planning on publishing in the year 2050, please post them I would be very interested to see that.
@PatrickDelaney It's not gambling because it's play money. Otherwise it would be illegal in the US for everyone (not just children).
My point is that actuarial tables are based on current life expectancy, they do not predict the future of life expectancy. The way you state the question assumes that actuarial tables will remain correct for the duration of one's life, which is wrong.
@jack that's not my understanding. My understanding is it's a gray area, regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which looks the other way on enforcement. It's a contentious area, multiple ongoing lawsuits.
@jack what you are saying about actuarial tables should be said as a top comment providing evidence to betters, not to me. I will not bet in this market. That's contextual not the rules.
@PatrickDelaney That article is about Kalshi, a real money platform. The whole point of Manifold being play money is to avoid those regulations.
And I agree it doesn't matter to the question itself, but I'm replying to what you wrote in the question description.
@jack Jack, I know that. Manifund. Attempts to convert mana to real money. Let's be honest with ourselves here, Ok? Don't needlessly cater to Manifold, use your brain, it's points, which can be sold, therefore it's a derivative. None of this is settled.
@PatrickDelaney I say this all of course hoping Manifold and other platforms can be completely legalized, no grey area. Not ripping on the idea, I love the platform.
@PatrickDelaney or perhaps not, because it's actually better to not even raise the issue and be flagrant about it. E.g. don't make fun of the police if they pull you over.
@PatrickDelaney I'm pretty confident that Manifold will not be subject to the same regulations as Kalshi, Predictit, etc. We can certainly bet on a question about it. https://manifold.markets/jbeshir/will-us-regulators-instruct-manifol is close, but also includes the case where manifold expands into real-money trading, so this should be an upper bound on the probability that US regulators go after it in the current play-money plus charity form.
Play-money plus charity isn't a completely new thing, it's been done before in other contexts, so there should be legal precedent on the topic.
@jack a thought experiment...what if it were found that 80% of users on Manifold were between ages 12 and 18? Would that bode well for Manifold 's legal case? It would certainly bode well for their user base and potential for growth.
@PatrickDelaney If the regulators want to go after platforms for kids gambling, they have much bigger fish to fry than a prediction market platform (even if it were hypothetically targeted at kids): https://www.axios.com/2022/02/10/sports-betting-social-casino-kids
@jack but you recognize then that strictly speaking, this platform is illegal, it's a matter of enforcement, and actively encouraging child gambling is non optimal for the platform. Hence my arbitrary cutoff of 18 years is justifiable. 21 could also be a good cutoff, but we'll make it 18.
@PatrickDelaney No, I do not believe that and didn't mean to imply that at all. Regulators can go after platforms for e.g. COPPA violations that have nothing to do with gambling.
@jack very puzzling and contradictory to what you just said. Oh well, no hard feelings. All right as the market maker, I am going to say, 18 is the cutoff for no reason other than I am not comfortable with doing anything close to encouraging kids gambling.
@PatrickDelaney I said it unclearly, let me try again:
I believe play-money gambling is legal in the US
Regulators can pursue cases on the basis of other aspects such as user privacy. (Above I used COPPA as an example only because we were talking about younger users, but this could be anything.)
Regulators can prioritize enforcement action for platforms that are perceived as less socially valuable / more socially harmful, even if those harms have nothing to do with the specific issue being enforced. For example, a regulator may prioritize bringing a privacy-related case against a legal gambling site.
@jack That makes more sense.
That being said, in the interests of wrapping the discussion up, I have added the following and will compensate you again as a thank you for your continued engagement.
20230714: Info regarding actuarial tables is contextual only. There is no one set of definitive actuarial tables that lasts forever.
20230714: For the purposes of this market, 18 years old at the time of counting is the cutoff for participating for no reason other than I am not comfortable with doing anything close to encouraging kids gambling.
@PatrickDelaney No need for compensation, this thread (except for my very first comment) wasn't about clarifying the question, it was about discussing how to answer the question and other tangential discussions.
@jack Thank you. I have tried to make it a habit of compensating those who help clarify the market even if that was not their intention. I would say, if you did not want or ask for that Mana, pay it forward to someone who might help you clarify your markets (even if they are being adversarial). This money spent would likely go further if you followed this practice than me as you are a much higher visibility user and it would be a great addition to the culture of Manifold if market makers were actively trying hard to clarify their markets. You may not even need help, because your markets seem extremely well defined, but it's the thought that counts. Or, you can just use the money however you want, or keep it, it's yours.