# $300 Fermi Model Competition

Summary
-------

**Task**: Make an interesting and informative Fermi estimate  
**Prize**: $300 for the top entry  
**Deadline:** February 16th, 2025  
**Results Announcement:** By March 1st, 2025  
J**udges**: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, the QURI team

Motivation
----------

LLMs have recently made it significantly easier to make Fermi estimates. You can chat with most LLMs directly, or you can use custom tools like [Squiggle AI](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jJ4pn3qvBopkEvGXb/introducing-squiggle-ai). And yet, overall, few people have taken much advantage of this. 

We at [QURI](https://quantifieduncertainty.org/) are launching a competition to encourage exploration.

What We’re Looking For
----------------------

Our goal is to discover creative ways to use AI for Fermi estimation. We're more excited about novel approaches than exhaustively researched calculations. Rather than spending hours gathering statistics or building complex spreadsheets, we encourage you to:

*   Let AI do most of the heavy lifting
*   Try unconventional estimation techniques
*   Experiment with multiple approaches to find surprising insights

The ideal submission might be as simple as a particularly clever prompt paired with the right AI tool. Don't feel pressured to spend days on your entry - a creative insight could win even if it takes just 20 minutes to develop.

Task
----

Create and submit an interesting Fermi estimate. Entries will be judged using Claude 3.5 Sonnet (with three runs averaged) based on four main criteria:

*   Surprise (40%): How unexpected/novel are the findings?
*   Topic Relevance (20%): Relevance to rationalist/EA communities
*   Robustness (20%): Reliability of methodology and assumptions
*   Model Quality (20%): Technical execution and presentation

AI tools to generate said estimates aren’t required, but we expect them to help.

Submission Format
-----------------

Post your entry as a comment to this post, containing:

1.  **Model**: The complete model content (text or link to accessible document)
2.  **Summary**: Brief explanation of why your estimate is interesting/novel, and any surprising results or insights discovered
3.  **Technique**: Brief explanation of what tools and techniques you used to create the estimate. If you primarily used one LLM or AI tool, the name of the tool is fine.

Examples
--------

Our previous post on Squiggle AI discussed [several interesting AI-generated models](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jJ4pn3qvBopkEvGXb/introducing-squiggle-ai#Example_Outputs). You can also see many results on [SquiggleHub](https://squigglehub.org/) and [Guesstimate](https://www.getguesstimate.com/models).

Important Notes
---------------

*   Content must be easily copyable for LLM evaluation.
*   Models must be less than 5,000 words total. We expect most to be in the range of 100 to 500 words.
*   Submissions that appear to be optimizing for LLM evaluation metrics rather than genuine insight and readability ("goodharting") will receive penalties up to 100% of their score.
*   Limit of 3 submissions per participant.
*   In exceptional circumstances, like if we get >100 submissions from some bots, we reserve the right to change the resolution system.
*   Note that the deadline is in 2 weeks!

**Support & Feedback**
----------------------

If you’d like feedback or would like to discuss possible ideas, please reach out! (via direct message or email.) We also have a [QURI Discord](https://discord.gg/nsTnQTgtG6) for relevant discussion.

* * *

**Appendix: Evaluation Rubric and Prompts**
-------------------------------------------

**Rubric**

| Name | Judge | Percent of Score |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Surprise | LLM | 40% |
| Importance | LLM | 20% |
| Robustness | LLM | 20% |
| Model Quality | LLM | 20% |
| Goodharting Penalty | QURI Team | Up to –100%* |

*Penalties reduce total score

  
**Surprise**  
  
Prompt:

> You are an expert Fermi model evaluator with extensive experience in constructing and analyzing models.  
>  
> 
> Please provide a numeric score of how surprising the key findings or conclusions of this model are to members of the rationalist and effective altruism communities. In your assessment, consider the following:
> 
> *   Contradiction of Expectations: Do the results challenge widely held beliefs, intuitive assumptions, or established theories within the communities?
> *   Counterintuitiveness: Are the findings non-obvious or do they reveal hidden complexities that are not immediately apparent?
> *   Discovery of Unknowns: Does the model uncover previously unrecognized issues, opportunities, or risks?
> *   Magnitude of Difference: How significant is the deviation of the model's results from common expectations or prior studies?
> 
> Please provide specific details or examples that illustrate the surprising aspects of the findings. Assign a rating from 0 to 10, where:
> 
> *   0 indicates 'Not Surprising'
> *   10 indicates 'Highly Surprising'
> 
> Judge on a curve, where a 5 represents the median expectation.

  
**Topic Relevance**

Prompt:

> You are an expert Fermi model evaluator with extensive experience in constructing and analyzing models.
> 
> Please provide a numeric score of the importance of the model's subject matter to the rationalist and effective altruism communities. In your evaluation, consider the following:
> 
> *   Relevance: How directly does the model address issues, challenges, or questions that are central to the interests and goals of these communities?
> *   Impact Potential: To what extent could the findings influence decision-making, policy, or priority-setting within the communities?
> 
> Assign a rating from 0 to 10, where:
> 
> *   0 indicates 'Not Important'
> *   10 indicates 'Highly Important'
> 
> Judge on a curve, where a 5 represents the median expectation.

  
**Robustness**

Prompt:  
 

> You are an expert Fermi model evaluator with extensive experience in constructing and analyzing models.  
>  
> 
> Please provide a numeric score of the robustness of the model's key findings. In your evaluation, consider the following factors:
> 
> *   Sensitivity to Assumptions: How dependent are the results on specific assumptions, parameters, or data inputs? Would reasonable changes to these significantly alter the conclusions?
> *   Evidence Base: How strong and reliable is the data supporting the model? Are the data sources credible and up-to-date?
> *   Methodological Rigor: Does the model use sound reasoning and appropriate methods? Are potential biases or limitations acknowledged and addressed?
> *   Consensus of Assumptions: To what extent are the underlying assumptions accepted within the rationalist and effective altruism communities?
> 
> Provide a detailed justification, citing specific aspects of the model that contribute to its robustness or lack thereof. Assign a rating from 0 to 10, where:
> 
> *   0 indicates 'Not Robust'
> *   10 indicates 'Highly Robust'
> 
> Judge on a curve, where a 5 represents the median expectation.

  
**Model Quality**

Prompt:

> You are an expert Fermi model evaluator with extensive experience in constructing and analyzing models.  
>  
> 
> Please provide a numeric score of the model's quality, focusing on both its construction and presentation. Consider the following elements:
> 
> *   Comprehensiveness: Does the model account for all key factors and variables relevant to the problem it addresses?
> *   Data Integration: Are data sources appropriately selected and accurately integrated? Is there evidence of data validation or cross-referencing with established studies?
> *   Clarity of Assumptions: Are the model's assumptions clearly stated, justified, and reasonable? Does the model distinguish between empirical data and speculative inputs?
> *   Transparency and Replicability: Is the modeling process transparent enough that others could replicate or audit the results? Are the methodologies and calculations well-documented?
> *   Logical Consistency: Does the model follow a logical structure, with coherent reasoning leading from premises to conclusions?
> *   Communication: Are the findings and their significance clearly communicated? Does the model include summaries, visual aids (e.g., charts, graphs), or other tools to enhance understanding?
> *   Practical Relevance: Does the model provide actionable insights or recommendations? Is it practical for use by stakeholders in the community?
> 
> Please provide specific observations and examples to support your evaluation. Assign a rating from 0 to 10, where:
> 
> *   0 indicates 'Poor Quality'
> *   10 indicates 'Excellent Quality'
> 
> Judge on a curve, where a 5 represents the median expectation.

**“Goodharting” Penalties**

We’ll add penalties if it seems like submissions Goodharted on the above metrics. For example, if an entry used prompt injection or similar tactics for the AI assessments, or if the model seems non-understandable to humans but still managed to do well in these evaluations. These penalties, when they occur, will typically be between 10% to 40%, but might go higher in extreme situations. We’ll aim to choose a penalty that’s greater than the gains submissions received due to these behaviors.