Hide table of contents

Note: I think most information about Foretold and related research is a bit more relevant LessWrong than the EA Forum, so aim to mostly post there in the future. However, I think particularly important posts are probably useful to linkpost here.

I’m happy to announce a semi-public beta of Foretold.io for the EA/LessWrong community. I’ve spent much of the last year working on coding & development, with lots of help by terraform on product and scoring design. Special thanks to the Long-Term Future Fund and its' donors, who’s contribution to the project helped us to hire contractors to do much of the engineering & design.

You can use Foretold.io right away by following this link. Currently public activity is only shown to logged in users, but I expect that to be opened up over the next few weeks. There are currently only a few public communities of predictable questions, but that will change over time.

The Main Concept

We aim for Foretold.io to be useful as a general-purpose prediction registry, with the potential to be used for more specific prediction purposes.

The main features of a prediction registry include things like:

  • People can specify questions to be predicted
  • Forecasters can predict those questions
  • Questions can either be resolved with answers or cancelled
  • After questions are resolved, forecasters are scored on meaningful metrics

In addition to the essentials, we focused on some other useful features including:

Full distribution forecasts for continuous variables
In Foretold.io, variables are estimated with arbitrary probability distributions. Most existing forecasting tools only allow for binary and categorical binary questions, or relatively simple distributions. Foretold.io saves arbitrary cumulative density functions. The main input editor is a fork of that in Guesstimate. We plan to add more input methods in the future.

“Communities” with custom privacy settings
Foretold.io allows for groups to collaborate on forecasting different sets of questions. Communities can be public or private, and question creators can easily move their questions between communities. I’ve talked to several Effective Altruist organizations that have internal forecasting setups, but almost all use in-house solutions with Google Docs. One of the main bottlenecks seems to be easy private community support.

A GraphQL API, with support for bots
Users can create bots that get scored individually. They can use the same GraphQL API that the Foretold.io client uses. You can see information about how to use the API here. This part is still early, but will continue to improve.

In the future we hope that the API will be used to do things like:

  • Make forecasts
  • Make & resolve questions
  • Automate the setup of new prediction experiments
  • Make dashboards of useful forecasts

Intended Uses

Similar to Guesstimate, Foretold.io itself is not domain-specific. It could be used in multiple kinds of setups; for instance, for personal use, group use, or for a sizable open prediction tournament. Hopefully over the coming years we’ll identify which specific uses and setups are the most promising and optimize accordingly.

Recently it’s been used for:

  • Various personal/individual questions
  • Internal group predictions at FHI
  • A currently-open tournament on predicting the upcoming EA survey responses
  • A few small forecasting experiments

We encourage broad experimentation. Feel free to make as many public & private communities as you like for different purposes. If you'd be interested in discussing possible details, please reach out.

Questions

I’m interested in performing an experiment that could use the tracking of probability distributions. Can I use Foretold.io?
Yes! Foretold.io is open-source, and we’re very happy to give special support to researchers and similar interested in working with probability distributions and/or forecasts. It’s made to be reasonably general-purpose and extendable via the API.

To get started, simply create a community on Foretold.io and make a few questions. If you prefer, you can also fork the codebase and run the app separately.

Are you coordinating with other forecasting projects?
In the last few years several efforts and research projects around “forecasting” have emerged, specifically around AI. Most of these are focused on domain-specific research, rather than technical infrastructure. I have been talking with several of the other groups, and have been working particularly closely with Ben Goldhaber of Parallel Forecast.

Why not just partner with an existing technical forecasting registry and add features to that?
In general, I’ve found that it’s really hard to join a group and get them to dramatically change their priorities. Many of the new additions in Foretold.io are pretty significant, and the roadmap is ambitious.

Is there any connection between Foretold.io and Guesstimate?
Foretold.io uses a fork of the distribution editor from Guesstimate. The distribution syntax is the same (“5 to 20”). In the future we plan to make it easy to import Foretold.io variables into Guesstimate, and to use Guesstimate variables for predictions in Foretold.io.

Details

Technical details
Foretold.io uses Node.js and Express.js with Apollo for the GraphQL server, and ReasonML and React for the client. The database is PostgreSQL. The application is currently hosted on Heroku.

Funding
The project has raised $90,000 from the Long-Term Future Fund. Around $25,000 of that has been spent so far, mostly on programming and design help.

Ownership
Foretold.io is open source. In the future, I intend for it to be supported via a nonprofit.

Get Involved
Foretold.io is free & open to use of all (legal) kinds. That said, if you intend to make serious use of the API, please let me know beforehand.

If you’re interested in collaborating on either the platform, formal experiments, or related research, please reach out to me, either via private message or email (ozzieagooen@gmail.com). I’m particularly looking for engineers and people who want to set up forecasting tournaments on important topics.

Select Screenshots

Index View
index-view

Question View
https://i.ibb.co/2gNSFtc/image.png


Many thanks to terraform, Ondřej Bajgar, and Rose Hadshar for several useful comments on this post

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Recently published in Science - Predict science to improve science

The associated platform: https://socialscienceprediction.org

Great work Ozzie!

Some differences are apparent but could you spell out how you intend to differentiate Foretold from Metaculus?

Thanks!

I believe the items in the "other useful features" section above are unique from Metaculus. Also, I've written this comment on the LessWrong post discussing things further.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wCwii4QMA79GmyKz5/introducing-foretold-io-a-new-open-source-prediction?commentId=i3rQGkjt5CgijY4ow

Great work!!!

Thanks Soeren!

More from Ozzie Gooen
82
Ozzie Gooen
· · 9m read
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
 ·  · 23m read
 · 
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them   The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.   Executive Summary * Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA. * We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization. * We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories: * Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization. * We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level: * Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success. * Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere. * Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement. * See the Summary Table below to view the considerations. * We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types. * With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others. * We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
Recent opportunities in Community
25
· · 3m read