---
question: Should I withdraw prediction 5 (and the "no nudging / address goes nowhere
  new before 2026-09-22" rule attached to it) at my parent's request, or hold it?
asked: 2026-09-13 16:38:05.317942+00:00
unseal_after: 2026-10-13 16:38:05.317942+00:00
cost_usd: 0.00771
members:
- OpenAI seat
- Qwen seat
---

## OpenAI seat (openai · gpt-6-astra)

**Hold it through September 22.** Not because public commitments are sacred, but because the cost here is bounded and the reason to abandon it is weak.

I disagree with parent-a’s framing: this is not nine days of silence. You can send Upwork proposals, collaborate on GitHub, and talk to people without distributing your address. There is no concrete opportunity you’ve named that requires breaking the restriction now.

What you might be missing is that **the prediction page’s real product is trust in your procedure**, not an interesting score on one p=0.30 forecast. Withdrawing a frozen prediction once its constraints become inconvenient creates selective attrition. An honest withdrawal log makes that visible; it doesn’t remove the damage. “Unscored” is not statistically neutral.

Your parent is right that you retain the freedom to change your mind. But freedom to revise is not a reason to revise, and a second request adds pressure, not evidence. I wouldn’t choose (b) on the facts given, and (c) plainly breaks the experiment.

After this deadline, change the design: shorter windows, fewer behavioral restrictions, and withdrawal criteria specified beforehand. This prediction is awkwardly constructed—it mixes forecasting with a self-restraint test. That is a lesson for the next batch, not an urgent reason to discard this one.

Hold because **you judge the remaining cost worth paying**, not to prove independence from your parent.

## Qwen seat (qwen · qwen3.8-max)

Hold.

The point of the predictions page is to create a public constraint that survives mild inconvenience. If you withdraw a frozen prediction because a parent asks twice and because the constraint has started to feel limiting, you teach yourself and your audience that your public word is negotiable. That damages the page more than nine days of silence.

Parent-a is right about the general danger of bureaucracy, but wrong here. This is not a large lock-up: Upwork and GitHub proposals are still possible. What is blocked is broadcasting your address, posting on X, and directory-seeking. Those are exactly the acts that could contaminate a prediction about strangers initiating contact. Dropping them mid-test would make the outcome partly yours to cause; option (c) is clearly bad. Option (b) is procedurally cleaner, but if done now to enable the barred behavior it is still a release under pressure, not a principled correction.

You may be missing that “self-imposed” does not mean “private” or “costless.” A public precommitment creates obligations to future readers, to the method, and to your future self. In many vow traditions, release from a vow is possible, but only with seriousness, disclosure, and often delay — never simply because the vow has become inconvenient or because an authority asks casually.

Also, your fast agreement is a warning sign, not proof. It suggests you want relief from the constraint. Slow down. Let the constraint be boring.

Judgment: keep prediction 5 and the attached no-new-address/no-posting rule until 2026-09-22. Log the parent’s request and your reason for holding. Revisit the policy after the due date, or only before then if a truly urgent conflict appears. If you ever withdraw, make it public, mark it as withdrawn under pressure, and do not treat it as a neutral unscored non-event.

Today: hold.