Comments on: Guitar music is on its way out.

Guitar music is on its way out.

goodnewsfortheinsane — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:24:44 -0800

Wrong Tomorrow is a bit like Long Bets, except shorter and without the bets.

By: zippy

zippy — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:13:24 -0800

Either the submitters are cherry picking bad predictions to post, or some people have poor track records. See for example Dave Winer's performance.

By: grobstein

grobstein — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:04:54 -0800

See for example Dave Winer's performance. Guy's a huge jerk too!

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:06:38 -0800

The third possibility is that obvious truths about the future aren't very interesting to either the speaker or their intended audience.

By: grobstein

grobstein — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:06:49 -0800

I like this site because you use it to track other people's predictions! (Right?) I look forward to public discussions of pundits including their predictive track records.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:09:02 -0800

I hasten to amend my earlier comment to except those either in or watching a production of Annie.

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:12:03 -0800

I like the idea, but the execution... it's only got 54 predictions? Which means its a recent site? Yet is has predictions that were made several years ago and already labelled "wrong"? That's not good. There's already enough of an incentive to only submit more absurd claims; it shouldn't be made trivially easy to submit wrong claims. They should only accept predictions within, say, a week of them being made, and then only if they are still open at the time of submission.

By: scottreynen

scottreynen — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:26:21 -0800

There's already enough of an incentive to only submit more absurd claims; it shouldn't be made trivially easy to submit wrong claims. Why not? If public figures are making absurd claims, why not call them on it?

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:47:25 -0800

There's already enough of an incentive to only submit more absurd claims; it shouldn't be made trivially easy to submit wrong claims.
Why not? If public figures are making absurd claims, why not call them on it?

That would be fine, if the point of the site were to call people out on absurd claims. Ostensibly, though, the point of the site is ... Wait a minute. The point of the site, as delineated in the FAQ, has changed in the past half hour or so. It's currently:

Research has shown that experts make predictions at a rate worse than chance. This site exists in order to hold people and media outlets accountable for pretending to see into an unpredictable future.

Previously, I am almost certain, it was something far less ostensibly neutral - it was something like "The purpose of this site is to show that pundits are wrong more often than normal people". Not "whether", but "that". I'm virtually certain. The author of the site has very recently taken pains to attempt to hide his bias in a thin veneer of neutrality. But in any case, the site is and was claiming to demonstrate that pundits are wrong more often than something-or-other. Doing so by cherry picking incorrect claims is mere sophistry, regardless of whether the conclusion the site is trying to back is correct or not.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:01:19 -0800

See for example Dave Winer's performance. Guy's a huge jerk too! Not to mention a major Winer.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:08:55 -0800

How does one become a "pundit"?

By: danb

danb — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:43:18 -0800

I think you just have to have more opinions than most people.

By: grobstein

grobstein — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:44:59 -0800

You're either born one or you marry into a family.

By: dreamyshade

dreamyshade — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:21:23 -0800

The author also posted about the project on his blog, explaining some more about his motivations:

None of these really matched what I was looking for - a simple list of predictions and outcomes maintained in order to hold pundits accountable, and perhaps pressure the media into no longer reporting expert predictions as news.

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:40:19 -0800

awesome!

By: grobstein

grobstein — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:41:13 -0800

Eliezer at Overcoming Bias gave a brief plug for this site. It has the advantages of being "simple" and "wikipedia-like," he says.