Comment by arter45
3 hours ago
I agree. What I'm saying is that, especially because way less critical applications of this "bet and act to win the bet" rule (sport, insurance,...) are notoriously illegal, I don't see why worse use cases (bet on a military action and lead it) should be ok.
I can give you a concrete example
In chess, it's part of the rules that you cannot use a chess engine, a tournament may have a prize money, to enter into a tournament you agree to some clauses like following the rules of chess and not using an engine. It's a contract.
If someone were to use an engine, they would be cheating, and in this context it would be breach of contract, and possibly fraud.
It would be wrong to assume that because using computer programs in this competitive sport, it is therefore wrong to use it in more critical applications, like war, or health or construction. The core reason being because they are by nature very different events with different contracts that are entered into willingly and are controlled by very different laws, but also independent of laws, they are very different phenomenons and will of course have different moral and practical impacts. (Duh)
Ok but what difference between, say, sport bets and “prediction market” is significant enough to allow people who can directly influence the result bet on it, but only in “prediction markets”?